Chandra shows Milky Way is surrounded by halo of hot gas

Sep 24, 2012
Astronomers have used Chandra to find evidence that our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. This artist's illustration shows the halo of hot gas, in blue, around the Milky Way and two small neighboring galaxies. The mass of the halo is estimated to be comparable to the mass of all the stars in the Milky Way galaxy. If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it could be the solution to the "missing-baryon" problem for the Galaxy. Credit: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss; NASA/CXC/Ohio State/A.Gupta et al.

(Phys.org)—Astronomers have used NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to find evidence our Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in an enormous halo of hot gas that extends for hundreds of thousands of light years. The estimated mass of the halo is comparable to the mass of all the stars in the galaxy.

If the size and mass of this gas halo is confirmed, it also could be an explanation for what is known as the "missing baryon" problem for the galaxy.

are particles, such as protons and neutrons, that make up more than 99.9 percent of the mass of atoms found in the cosmos. Measurements of extremely distant gas halos and galaxies indicate the present when the universe was only a few billion years old represented about one-sixth the mass and density of the existing unobservable, or dark, matter. In the current epoch, about 10 billion years later, a census of the baryons present in stars and gas in our galaxy and shows at least half the baryons are unaccounted for.

In a recent study, a team of five astronomers used data from Chandra, the 's XMM-Newton and Japan's satellite to set limits on the temperature, extent and mass of the hot gas halo. Chandra observed eight bright X-ray sources located far beyond the galaxy at distances of hundreds of millions of light-years. The data revealed X-rays from these distant sources are absorbed selectively by in the vicinity of the galaxy. The scientists determined the temperature of the absorbing halo is between 1 million and 2.5 million kelvins, or a few hundred times hotter than the surface of the sun.

Other studies have shown that the Milky Way and other galaxies are embedded in warm gas with temperatures between 100,000 and 1 million kelvins. Studies have indicated the presence of a hotter gas with a temperature greater than 1 million . This new research provides evidence the hot gas halo enveloping the Milky Way is much more massive than the warm gas halo.

"We know the gas is around the galaxy, and we know how hot it is," said Anjali Gupta, lead author of The Astrophysical Journal paper describing the research. "The big question is, how large is the halo, and how massive is it?"

To begin to answer this question, the authors supplemented Chandra data on the amount of absorption produced by the oxygen ions with XMM-Newton and Suzaku data on the X-rays emitted by the gas halo. They concluded that the mass of the gas is equivalent to the mass in more than 10 billion suns, perhaps as large as 60 billion suns.

"Our work shows that, for reasonable values of parameters and with reasonable assumptions, the Chandra observations imply a huge reservoir of hot gas around the Milky Way," said co-author Smita Mathur of Ohio State University in Columbus. "It may extend for a few hundred thousand light-years around the Milky Way or it may extend farther into the surrounding local group of galaxies. Either way, its mass appears to be very large."

The estimated mass depends on factors such as the amount of oxygen relative to hydrogen, which is the dominant element in the gas. Nevertheless, the estimation represents an important step in solving the case of the missing baryons, a mystery that has puzzled astronomers for more than a decade.

Although there are uncertainties, the work by Gupta and colleagues provides the best evidence yet that the galaxy's missing baryons have been hiding in a halo of million-kelvin gas that envelopes the galaxy. The estimated density of this halo is so low that similar halos around other galaxies would have escaped detection.

The paper describing these results was published in the Sept. 1 issue of The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Explore further: Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say

Related Stories

Hubble confirms: galaxies are ultimate recyclers

Nov 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- New observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope are expanding astronomers' understanding of the ways in which galaxies continuously recycle immense volumes of hydrogen gas and heavy elements. ...

Black hole growth found to be out of sync

Jun 11, 2012

(Phys.org) -- New evidence from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory challenges prevailing ideas about how black holes grow in the centers of galaxies. Astronomers long have thought that a supermassive black hole ...

Mapping dark matter from galactic ripples

Jan 09, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Sukanya Chakrabarti, Ph.D., an assistant professor of physics for the Charles E. Schmidt College of Science at Florida Atlantic University, has developed a way to discover and map dark matter in galaxies. ...

Hot, massive haloes found around most spiral galaxies

Dec 14, 2005

Astronomers using ESA's XMM-Newton observatory have found very hot gaseous haloes around a multitude of spiral galaxies similar to our Milky Way galaxy. These 'ghost-like' veils have been suspected for decades ...

Recommended for you

Quest for extraterrestrial life not over, experts say

Apr 18, 2014

The discovery of an Earth-sized planet in the "habitable" zone of a distant star, though exciting, is still a long way from pointing to the existence of extraterrestrial life, experts said Friday. ...

Continents may be a key feature of Super-Earths

Apr 18, 2014

Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds. A new study gives hope for the possibility that many super-Earth ...

Exoplanets soon to gleam in the eye of NESSI

Apr 18, 2014

(Phys.org) —The New Mexico Exoplanet Spectroscopic Survey Instrument (NESSI) will soon get its first "taste" of exoplanets, helping astronomers decipher their chemical composition. Exoplanets are planets ...

User comments : 57

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
It's not gas, gas cannot exist at one million kelvin nor does gas emit X-rays. It is in FACT plasma, and the EM properties of that plasma will dictate all that resides within.
Caliban
4 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
What keeps this gas halo energized to one to two and a half million Kelvins...are there that many xray sources near and/or powerful enough to add that much energy?
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
What keeps this gas halo energized to one to two and a half million Kelvins...are there that many xray sources near and/or powerful enough to add that much energy?


Inter-galactic birkeland currents would do the trick.
Remigiusz
1 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2012
There are terrific experiments and magnificent results and it's big if!!! The misinterpretations. What are compelling reazons? Poor framing of primary date as Mass , Matter , Time-Space, Beginning and Evolution of Universe. I'm autor of Quantum Universe Theory. You may find it interesting but what we know as speed of light /I call it speed of information / is average speed of information in quantum time-space. Information starts from 1st point of quantum space to next point which is 1st of second quantum time space with speed from O m/s and reach speed 2c / average c/Approaching the point of next quantum space information starts from speed O and has quantum speedup ~3x10 to power of 24 m/s2.The sum of average quantum speeds is what we know as speed of light. It explains why speed of light /or speed of flow of information/ is no different irregardless of frame of reference. Interested? Give me an offer.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 24, 2012
The word "halo" is also a misnomer. It's a network -- a web.
radek
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2012
where are Dark Matter/Energy apologists? Any comments?
Lurker2358
1.6 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2012
Although amazing and perplexing to see it in this form, this appears to be more support for my spherical shell model of system formations, as opposed to the disk model using in both planetary and galactic system formation theories presently.

I have not come up with a complete idea of what holds this much matter up against the force of gravity over eons at such a distance and keeps it at such temperature, particularly given the orbiting dwarf galaxies within the halo, but some ideas are:

1, Electric charge of light itself (somehow)

2, Radiation pressure and/or repulsive gravity theories.

3, Galactic dynamo actually caused by the orbiting galaxies, propelling the plasma away and heating it via an intergalactic magnetic field generated by these orbits.

Maybe there was an absurdly large supernova/hypernova in the distant past as Sagitarius A formed and collapsed into a black hole. Some of the remnants re-formed into new stars, teh so-called second generation variety.

cranked it out!
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (11) Sep 24, 2012
In fact, at this scale, it LOOKS like a black hole or neutron star w/ accretion disk at the center of a supernova remnant.

http://en.wikiped...b_Pulsar

and

http://en.wikiped...b_Nebula

Maybe the Milky Way is a 1st generation hyper-nova remnant...a Galactic mass star which formed and exploded almost immediately, leaving a nearly uniform shell of matter, and a supermassive black hole at the center, with lots of new first and second generation stars orbitting it from the debris field.

It would have exploded long before most of the matter even fully collapsed, perhaps experiencing total annihilation of some material, while ejecting (half the mass) into intergalactic space, where it became trapped between gravity and radiation pressure.

Ok, there's my "crank" theory of the day explained.

This one is fun, cause nohting is off the table...
hemitite
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2012
What keeps this plasma so hot? Remember that we are talking about a charged gas that is thinner than the best vacuum we can currently make, so there are very few collisions, and most of them would be elastic because of their mutual repulsion. Thus these particles would tend to keep their kinetic energy for a long long time.

The thing that I am curious about is what keeps such energetic particles from just whizzing away. Perhaps it's true that this cloud is common to the whole galactic cluster and is this a gravitational captive of our cluster.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (13) Sep 24, 2012
IMO the central area of Milky Way radiates the neutrinos, which cool with collisions with CMBR photons into particles of matter and gamma rays and maintain their temperature. IMO This emanation of matter is a remnant of violent past of Milky Way, when it had a polar jets like the young active galaxies. IMO the same mechanism (i.e. the collisions with neutrinos generated inside of Sun) is responsible for heating of plasma inside of solar corona.
CrossMan
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2012
Arxiv version: 1205.5037

The authors know very well this is a plasma. They use gas/plasma/highly ionized gas interchangeably in their manuscript. Note that his is a huge step in resolving the "missing baryon problem," which is not the same as the dark matter problem. Even assuming dark matter, galaxies appear to have fewer baryons than they should according to standard scenarios.
MachinegunDojo
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
Still trying to wrap my head around this one, it seems overly hot for an area I'd imagine being fairly cool. The first thing I thought of was "Could this be caused by matter/antimatter interactions?"
MrVibrating
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 24, 2012
What keeps this plasma so hot? Remember that we are talking about a charged gas that is thinner than the best vacuum we can currently make, so there are very few collisions, and most of them would be elastic because of their mutual repulsion. Thus these particles would tend to keep their kinetic energy for a long long time.
Precisely.

The thing that I am curious about is what keeps such energetic particles from just whizzing away. Perhaps it's true that this cloud is common to the whole galactic cluster and is this a gravitational captive of our cluster.


Either we captured it... or coalesced within it. Val's idea of dispersed polar jet ash is also food for thought... Presumably though the size and density is constrained gravitationally as you suggest. Doubtless such questions will be suitably scrutinized and debated in the near future!
MrVibrating
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 24, 2012
Still trying to wrap my head around this one, it seems overly hot for an area I'd imagine being fairly cool. The first thing I thought of was "Could this be caused by matter/antimatter interactions?"

You're half-right about the temperature; such an environment wouldn't feel hot or cold - you'd be insulated by a near perfect vacuum, and on the off-chance of colliding with a passing particle you'd feel anything from a needle-like jab, to nothing at all, at least until any tumours showed up....
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 24, 2012
Arxiv version: 1205.5037

The authors know very well this is a plasma. They use gas/plasma/highly ionized gas interchangeably in their manuscript. Note that his is a huge step in resolving the "missing baryon problem," which is not the same as the dark matter problem. Even assuming dark matter, galaxies appear to have fewer baryons than they should according to standard scenarios.


It is a misconception that "gas" is interchangeable with plasma, they are distinct states of matter, a fact that any scientist should know. Being that in excess of 99% of the visible universe is plasma, it is should be an embarrassment that a "peer-reviewed" paper discussing plasma can contain such errors. Then again, when all your "peers" can't seem to grasp the difference between the two, who would know?
Caliban
2.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
All the foregoing aside, the question still remains. In order for this Gas, Plasma or whatever you want to call it, to exist in this ultra excited state-- what orbital shell would the electrons have to be in, and how would they be able to remain bound to their respective nuclei? Especially when one considers that they do not reside in a perfect vacuum?

Something else is going on here.

Shinichi D_
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2012
where are Dark Matter/Energy apologists? Any comments?


This has nothing to do with dark matter. We still need about 7X as much gravitationally interacting 'matter'
naqe
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2012
Electric Universe.
The galaxy is perhaps highly charged itself. Gravity can't be the power house anymore in our standard model, plasma could very well be the dominent force in the Universe over gravity.

This cloud could be held together by static electricity. Gravity doesn't have to have anything to do with it - at all.
naqe
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2012
Also, I can imagine, if we could see this cloud's design, it would probably look very similar to a plasma coil discharging =)
Anda
3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2012
Again a lot of fucking nobel award candidates writing comment after comment. It's not even worth reading'em
naqe
2.9 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2012
Anda, do you have high expectations of people? Imagine how many scientific minds there are out there, that did not get the chance to be educated enough to be able to leave comments worth your eyes. Or, is it perhaps difficult for you to leave a comment that doesn't childishly feed your ego? =)
Your comment is worth much LESS than the ones you've read.
Hypocrite.
naqe
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2012
Natello, thank you for giving me something to think about =)
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2012
If the cloud is charged, it would be large enough to hold itself up by the fact that same charges repel same charges.

However, such would require Sagitarius A to be a charged black hole, in order to "hold up" all of the matter outside the event horizon against it's own gravity.

Because electric charge is so powerful compared to gravity per unit mass, it's easily conceivable that the black hole's relatively small (presumed) charge could be enough to hold up the cloud, combined with the cloud's own charge.

I don't think this would work indefinitely, because the matter on the outside shells of the halo still produces "weight" or "pressure" on the matter on the inside shells of the halo, pushing the lower levels in towards the galaxy, continuing to collapse at a very slow rate anyway. However, the distances are so great, and there would be a negative feedback to the rate of collapse; the denser the charged matter becomes in the center the harder it is to collapse farther to an asymptote
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2012
Now think about this.

Electric charge functions over very short distances for individual atoms. If you have a thing plasma throughout this halo, and an same charged Sagitarius A,and a same charged plasma inside the galaxy, then you can explain "Dark Matter" without the need for "missing matter".

"Dark Matter" effect is caused by the fact that the electric charge repulsion would decrease with distance much faster than gravity, so that it "appears" that gravity is remaining constant after some time when moving out through the galaxy, explaining the same speed of stars moving, assuming the charge is net repulsive.

what this means is Sagitarius A is far more massive than it appears to be, but much of it's gravity is offset by a repulsive force in the form of a charge, and of course charge extends over much shorter distances than gravity.

Dark Matter is a ficticious force appearing from a "subtraction" of two forces, which decay over distance at different rates; gravity prevailing.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2012
As you move out from Sagitarious A, the EM force from the charge decays faster than gravity, so that it APPEARS that the net attraction begins to level off and remain constant with distance, causing the more distant stars to orbit at the same or similar velocity.

This makes far more sense than "invisible matter evenly distributed" because the plasma charge can EASILY offset the internal gravity of the galaxy, IF the black hole(s) have a net charge being the same as the distributed gas or plasma.

I think some nuclear fusion reactions and neutron core reactions can produce a net charge in some cases, because of annihilation events. Even though a neutron star's core is close to neutral, it's surface is a crust of iron and other heavy metals, which could be charged and still trapped in the ultra compact gravity field. Then let's say it "eats" a lot of neutral gas, smashing all this into a black hole, and viola, charged black hole = repel same charged plasma or gas..
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
Summary:

Net Force = the sum of all forces.

Therefore net acceleration is caused by the sum of all forces.

Fn = Fg - Fe

Where "n" is net or total, "g" is gravity, and "e" is repulsive electrical charges.

Now imagine that, for whatever reason (the reason is irrelevant and can be covered by another theory,) everything on a galactic scale is slightly charged with the same charge, but not enough to overwhelm gravity locally for any one star, planet, black hole, or neutron star.

The charge will push outward on everything, while the gravity pulls inward.

Net Force = Gravity - Charge(of opposite vector)

This explains the flattening of the velocity curve of stars by radius from the hub of the galaxy, without the need for invisible or unknown forces.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
Now, the matter that is primarily "neutral" falls to the center of the mass, and of course created the Black Hole(s,) but even the matter of a black hole could be charged to begin with, if for no other reason than the fact that the core of the charged cloud would be denser, since it is holding up the weight of the entire cloud. And since the non-charged matter (solid, liquid, gas,) is not repelled, it coallesces into planets, stars, SMBH. But each of those also has a trace of charged matter incorporated.

For a planet this charged effect could be so small that we wouldn't notice it, but for stars and SMBH it could significantly change internal dynamics, as well as interactions on an inter-stellar and even inter-galactic level.

What about "missing mass" in galaxy clusters?

Galaxies of opposite charge would be attracted to one another much more strongly than gravity alone, producing the misnomered "missing mass" effect known as "Dark Matter".
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2012
Now for a thought experiment, imagine you have a universe filled with nothing but ~1 to 2 galactic masses worth of protons. There are no electrons in the entire universe, a closed, isolated system.

Gravity will want to pull all the matter into a black hole, but the repulsive force from the like charges will not allow it, and the protons all push out on one another.

Nevertheless, protons near the CoG/CoM are much more dense than on the outside, because they are holding up the "weight" of all the protons on the outside, and therefore some gravitational compression takes place anyway. It would look a LOT like a globular cluster, but on a galactic scale

Somebody needs to model this in a super computer to get the dimensions of the "balanced" state for mass ranges of 1 to 2 "observable Milky Way masses". This would allow one to know the minimum and maximum ranges of what this effect could produce.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
You know, you can negative me all you like, BUT...

Now you're obligated to explain why it wouldn't work.

I put some thought into this, right or wrong, so you can at least put some thought into a response, rebuttal, or modification of my idea.

drive-by negative rating spam sucks..
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
Check the proton-proton chain.

It produces a net positive charge through Deuterium, then when Deuterium fuses to He3 you still have a net positive charge of 1 in the final atom, because of the positron annihilation with the electron.

So 3 protons to get He3.

Then 2He3 gives He4 plus 2H1 (starting from 6 protons).

Net charge is plus 2 and you have recycled 2 more protons.

PPII branch:

He3 plus He4 gives Be7 (net charge still plus 2)

Be7 plus an electron gives Li7 (Net charge now plus 3).

etc.

PPIII branch:

B8 gives Be8 plus a positron (annihilates an electron).

This gives an additional plus 1 net positive charge, as an alternative to PPII.

PPIV

produces a positron, which annihilates, producing a net positive charge.

So electrons are consumed, and eventually all stars make far more protons and positrons than the number of electrons you started with.

At some point you expect the positively charged atoms to escape the star, which they do, as solar winds...
ddietle
not rated yet Sep 25, 2012
Isn't there a theory, or at least a suggestion, that the Milky Way, and for that fact, most galaxies, formed out of a quasar? If you think of the galaxy in terms of a forming star, with the arms being planets/an accretion disc, then the "halo" (or nebula, shell, whatever) would possibly be analogous to the Oort cloud. Considering the sheer volume of energy emitted by a quasar, if the matter "left behind" out in the shell were charged and in a "true" vacuum, wouldn't it retain that energy almost indefinitely?

I'm no cosmologist, and my physics background is just what I've read and seen on TV, it just seems like a plausible explanation to me.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2012
The gas halo coincides with the dark matter halo found to surround galaxies. This is consistent with LaViolette's SubQuantum Kinectics prediction, where dark matter is the pre-condition to the formation of matter. This critical state is enhanced near matter, such as our galaxy, encouraging the nucleation of new matter very slowly over long periods of time. Likely all galaxies will be found to be surrounded by such halos, of a combination of matter and dark matter.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
Screwing around with numbers a bit shows gravitational time dilation is probably not enough to matter.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2012
@ cantdrive85:

Astronomers models and label this as "gas" because its gaseous properties is what matters here (mass and pressure). This is nothing extraordinary, only area terminology and physics know how.

Also, EU/PC religion has nothing to do with cosmology.

@ radek:

"Dark Matter/Energy apologists".

Standard cosmology is the science that you can accept or reject, there is no need for apologism. And this article is, as we can all see, about research that yet again sucessfully test the standrad cosmology and its dark matter prediction. There is no known alternative any longer, they don't predict any of this.

@ Lurker2358:

"Dark Matter is a ficticious force".

It is, as the name implies, matter and no force - forces can't predict the observations from various dark matter observations with gravitational lensing, since they would need different parameters in different places. Hence we know what we see is matter.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2012
@ cantdrive85:

Astronomers models and label this as "gas" because its gaseous properties is what matters here (mass and pressure). This is nothing extraordinary, only area terminology and physics know how.

Also, EU/PC religion has nothing to do with cosmology.


It's not gas, it has nothing to do with gas! According to you we may as well call it a brick or a marsh-mellow or fairy dust (not to be confused with dark matter fairy dust). Even NASA acknowledges over 99% of the visible universe as being plasma, maybe you'll and these other dolts will catch on someday, however unlikely that may be. A religious dogma is hard to overcome, especially for those with cult like beliefs such as your own.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2012
ddietle: IMO the temperature of (ideal) gas is basically its kinetic energy. So it's retained because of lack of interaction (heat = energy transfer) between the gas particles (because it is spread very thin). Another thing would be probably (quite rare, but pervasive) photon re-emission.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2012
Likely all galaxies will be found to be surrounded by such halos, of a combination of matter and dark matter.

Such a halo was observed already many times. I particularly like this composite picture.
Q-Star
2.6 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2012
Did someone read the word "plasma" somewhere? And stop reading there because "plasma" is such a beautiful word and there is nothing else so lovely?

Psst, a hint, plasma is a condition of a substance, not an all inclusive description. (Though many people use that word incorrectly.) All it means is that the substance is in a ionized state, ie, missing one or more electrons, carrying a net charge. Gas can be ionized, a solid can be ionized, a liquid can be ionized. There is so much more to physics than a single word such as "plasma".
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2012

Psst, a hint, plasma is a condition of a substance, not an all inclusive description. (Though many people use that word incorrectly.) All it means is that the substance is in a ionized state, ie, missing one or more electrons, carrying a net charge. Gas can be ionized, a solid can be ionized, a liquid can be ionized. There is so much more to physics than a single word such as "plasma".


Plasma is a state of matter, just as a solid, liquid, and gas are. Although the other three states can be ionized, that doesn't necessarily qualify them as plasma. It is an extremely important distinction to be made due to the unique properties that affect plasma. Gas and plasma do not behave the same way, a simple application of magnetohydrodynamics, rather than gas laws, to all the visible plasma will render the need for dark matter null. It strikes me that I'm scoffed at for desiring accuracy from scientists.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2012
Likely all galaxies will be found to be surrounded by such halos, of a combination of matter and dark matter.

Such a halo was observed already many times. I particularly like this http://i1-news.so...s-2.jpg.
For usual "lite" voting troll - a wikipedia entry exists about it.
Q-Star
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2012
It strikes me that I'm scoffed at for desiring accuracy from scientists.


Until you learn real science (rather than dabbling with a little sophomoric reading) you can't know whether the real scientists are accurate or not. What you're scoffed at is not your desire for accuracy, you are scoffed at for thinking you understand the thing. Or for thinking that you can get away with posing as someone who knows anything.

Of your last 100 posts, how many do you suppose didn't have the word "plasma" as their theme? Got anything besides "plasma" to pontificate about?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2012
"Such a halo was observed already many times. I particularly like this http://i1-news.so...s-2.jpg."

ValeriaT, this was the first observation of a hot corona, in the range 10^6-10^7 K, of the MWG: http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5037

Previous studies of the galactic corona of the MWG, and many other galaxies (e.g. your link), probed lesser temperature regimes (i.e. 10^5K and below).
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2012
It strikes me that I'm scoffed at for desiring accuracy from scientists.


Until you learn real science (rather than dabbling with a little sophomoric reading) you can't know whether the real scientists are accurate or not. What you're scoffed at is not your desire for accuracy, you are scoffed at for thinking you understand the thing. Or for thinking that you can get away with posing as someone who knows anything.

Of your last 100 posts, how many do you suppose didn't have the word "plasma" as their theme? Got anything besides "plasma" to pontificate about?

Being that the article is a discussion about plasma, why, what should I discuss? How about Star Trek? Maybe the inner workings of the adolescent mind? Being that over 99% of the universe is electrified plasma, my opinion is plasma is discussed far to little, instead "scientists" talk about hot gas that in reality does not exist. Plasmaplasmaplasmaplasmaplasma....
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2012
instead "scientists" talk about hot gas that in reality does not exist. Plasmaplasmaplasmaplasmaplasma


There you go, see that is what you can do when you really try,,, you are on the right track, by definition, plasma is a very hot gas (MOST of the time.)
baudrunner
1 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2012
Here's something for the pseudo-scientists: How can we have ultra cold zones contained within an ultra-hot cloud like that?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
Hi Q-star, pleased to meet you.
.... Psst, a hint, plasma is a condition of a substance, not an all inclusive description. (Though many people use that word incorrectly.) All it means is that the substance is in a ionized state, ie, missing one or more electrons, carrying a net charge. Gas can be ionized, a solid can be ionized, a liquid can be ionized. There is so much more to physics than a single word such as "plasma".

Sorry, but the difference is crucial in fundamental ways. Plasma state is an UNcharged Overall Collection of individual charged ions of BOTH kinds (positive and negative). It is overall NEUTRAL. While pos&neg ions themselves have a pos or neg charge, they cancel overall. Very important in understanding phenomena/behaviour of the plasma itself and interactions with other things. A collection of LIKE charges is NOT a plasma, it is a CLOUD (or if 'streaming', a CURRENT) of IONS of one kind or the other, pos or neg. Please do not conflate the two. :)
SteveL
not rated yet Sep 30, 2012
1) Can we assume that our galaxy is not unique and that such clouds of superheated gas surround most if not all galaxies (since we are just now finding ours). Could this cloud effect be universal?

2) Could extra-galactic superheated gas clouds push cooler galactic clouds and their much colder galaxies away from each other, much as Dark Energy is proposed to be the force behind universal expansion? In effect; could this be the dark energy we have been looking for?
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Please do not conflate the two. :)


Of course your distinction is very correct. I wasn't conflating to two. I was trying to point out to the other poster that his umbrage with scientists using the term "hot gas" was misguided. Plasma in it's most fundamental definition is an IONIZED (energetic = hot) gas. Charge is a conserved quantity, so your pointing out that the ions equaling the - ions is a good point.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012

Of course your distinction is very correct. I wasn't conflating to two. I was trying to point out to the other poster that his umbrage with scientists using the term "hot gas" was misguided. Plasma in it's most fundamental definition is an IONIZED (energetic = hot) gas. Charge is a conserved quantity, so your pointing out that the ions equaling the - ions is a good point.

Gas is gas, plasma is plasma. Do we call ice, frozen gas? I guess you're arguing about semantics, but there is a fundamental difference between the two. When this distinction is not made, the use of standard gas hydrodynamics (magnetohydrodynamics must be used) are use to describe the observed phenomenon are mistakenly used and the full context and behavior of the potential energy is not adequately considered. We know these misused terms are employed when they describe the behavior of the plasma in terms of "shockwaves", "bow shock", and "magnetic reconnection", clearly none plasma phenomenon.
Q-Star
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Gas is gas, plasma is plasma. Do we call ice, frozen gas? I guess you're arguing about semantics, but there is a fundamental difference between the two.


Mr Plasma,,,, would you care to quote us the definition of "Plasma" from any reputable source? Hey now, I'll start if off ya if you'd like:

"plasma - An ionized GAS consisting of a mixture of electrons and atomic nuclei.",,, source Cambridge Dictionary of Astronomy

"plasma - An ionized GAS containing ions and electrons whose behavior is controlled by elec-tromagnetic forces among the constituent ions and electrons.",,,, source CRC Press Dictionary or Geophysics, Astrophysics & Astronomy.

"Plasma (physics) - A GAS of charged and neutral particles which exhibits collective behavior.",,,, source Magraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology.

Oxford Dictionary of Physics,, much the same.

MIT Dictionary of Physics,,, much the same.

I'm afraid you will have to rely on Wiki,,,, Everyone else, not so much.
rah
2 / 5 (8) Sep 30, 2012
There are terrific experiments and magnificent results and it's big if!!! The misinterpretations. What are compelling reazons? Poor framing of primary date as Mass , Matter , Time-Space, Beginning and Evolution of Universe. I'm autor of Quantum Universe Theory. You may find it interesting but what we know as speed of light /I call it speed of information / is average speed of information in quantum time-space. Information starts from 1st point of quantum space to next point which is 1st of second quantum time space with speed from O m/s and reach speed 2c / average c/Approaching the point of next quantum space information starts from speed O and has quantum speedup ~3x10 to power of 24 m/s2.The sum of average quantum speeds is what we know as speed of light. It explains why speed of light /or speed of flow of information/ is no different irregardless of frame of reference. Interested? Give me an offer.

Please stop posting on this site.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2012
"Plasma is overwhemingly the dominant constituent of the universe as a whole. Yet most people are ignorant of plasmas. In daily life on the surface of planet Earth, perhaps the plasma to which people are most commonly exposed is the one that produces the cool efficient glow from fluorescent lights. Neither solid, nor liquid, nor gas, a plasma most closely resembles the latter, but unlike gases whose components are electrically neutral, plasma is composed of the building blocks of all matter: electrically charged particles at high energy." Peratt

http://plasmauniv...tml#what

I'll go with the real Mr. Plasma, Anthony Peratt, he who studied under Hannes Alfven.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (9) Sep 30, 2012
I'll go with the real Mr. Plasma, Anthony Peratt, he who studied under Hannes Alfven.


Two individuals don't have the privilege of defining a word for the entire profession. Twenty don't. The best they can hope for is convince the majority to accept their definition. Until then, you'll have to bear being scoffed at.

When you rail against the term "hot gas", ad nausium, you come across as a petulant "true believer". All the "big boys" define plasma as an ionized gas.

Trying to be the "voice in the wilderness", on this forum won't get any of the dictionaries, encyclopedias or text books rewritten in your favor. Sorry, but this is the way life is.
Oysteroid
1 / 5 (4) Sep 30, 2012
RealityCheck:
Plasma state is an UNcharged Overall Collection of individual charged ions of BOTH kinds (positive and negative). It is overall NEUTRAL. While pos&neg ions themselves have a pos or neg charge, they cancel overall.

Are you saying there can be no charged plasma?

Consider a thought experiment: We take a cloud of perfectly neutral plasma and take away just one ion. The remaining cloud is now charged overall (ever so slightly)... are you saying it's no longer a plasma? Sounds doubtful. So how many of the same-charged ions do you have to take to turn that plasma cloud into something else?
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
Plasma is a state of matter, just as a solid, liquid, and gas are. Although the other three states can be ionized, that doesn't necessarily qualify them as plasma. It is an extremely important distinction to be made ... It strikes me that I'm scoffed at for desiring accuracy from scientists.


On the contrary, you are scoffed at because you insist everything is a plasma, contrary to your own words above. In this thread:

http://phys.org/n...oud.html

you claimed the cloud was a plasma even though the paper lists what was observed and of the 6 species detected, 5 were neutral molecules and only one minor constituent was a slightly ionised molecule.

You can expected to be scoffed at as long as you contradict your own words, and if you can't comment on anything but plasma you will be treated as a "mission poster".
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012
While it seems a serene visage of the night sky, the Milky Way was born in chaos and shaped by violence. New research shows that it exists in a state of constant turbulence, and its future holds certain catastrophe (an infographic).
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Oct 04, 2012
Hi Oysteroid. :)
Are you saying there can be no charged plasma?....


Just like a neutral copper wire can 'conduct' a current of 'excess' charges to where that 'excess' charges may be 'isolated' or even 'expelled' (to 'ground' or oppositely charged body/region) such that the overall neutral state can be re-asserted (lowest energy level atomic/molecular state under the conditions), a neutral plasma stream can 'conduct' any 'excess'charges to other regions where the opposite charge state will be cancelled thereby and so tend to make the plasma neutral again. Only where there is a gross en-mass 'charge separation' mechanism (natural or man-made) to induce LARGE and PERSISTENT flows of LIKE charges will there be a NON-neutral plasma state. When such areas of 'like' charges move, they constitute a 'current' of LIKE CHARGE 'plasma state' (just like old vaccum tubes sent streams of electrons to screen; or where proton-proton colliders stream positive charges) through space. Cheers!

More news stories

Easter morning delivery for space station

Space station astronauts got a special Easter treat: a cargo ship full of supplies. The shipment arrived Sunday morning via the SpaceX company's Dragon cargo capsule.

Making graphene in your kitchen

Graphene has been touted as a wonder material—the world's thinnest substance, but super-strong. Now scientists say it is so easy to make you could produce some in your kitchen.