Computer model shows strong magnetic fields may alter alignment of black hole accretion disks and plasma jets

Nov 16, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Version 1: A spinning black hole (at center) produces a powerful jet (white-blue) along its spin axis. While near the hole, the disk rotational axis and jet direction are aligned with the black hole spin axis, but farther away the jet deviates and eventually points along the outer disk's rotational axis. Credit: Jonathan McKinney, University of Maryland, and Ralf Kaehler, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

(Phys.org)—Researchers from Stanford University and Princeton suggest in a paper they've had published in the journal Science that magnetic fields associated with some black holes may be strong enough to cause thick accretion disks to align with the spin of the black hole itself. Jonathan McKinney, Alexander Tchekhovskoy and Roger Blandford created three dimensional models based on relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations to show that strong magnetic field buildup in black holes may also explain why plasma jets fly out of some black holes along its spin of axis.

The researchers note that black holes with thin accretion disks tend to align with the axis of spin of a black hole due to the Bardeen-Petterson effect (viscous forces that cause the accretion flow to divide into two discrete regions). Why those with larger accretion disks do the same on occasion however, has remained a mystery. Now, based on results from a simulation the researchers have built, the team suggests it's due to the buildup of a strong magnetic field.

Version 2: Spinning black hole (at center) produces a powerful jet (white-blue) along its spin axis. The jet affects the orientation of the surrounding accretion disk (infalling hot plasma as white-red near the hole) causing the disk to align with the spin axis near the hole, but at larger distances the disk dominates the jet and the jet re-aligns with the outer disk. Credit: Jonathan McKinney, University of Maryland, and Ralf Kaehler, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Spinning black hole (at center) produces a powerful jet (white smoke) along its spin axis.

The researchers propose that as gravity pulls material into the black hole, the magnetic fields of those materials are absorbed along with it. This results in the buildup of a stronger and stronger magnetic field which once a certain point is reached, begins impacting the spin of both the surrounding the black hole and the direction of the plasma jets that it emits.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The team's showed that as a black holes' magnetic field grows stronger, a twist in space-time can occur around it which in turn can cause its to form spirals aligned with the black holes' axis of rotation. They note also that it's the black holes' magnetic field lines that produce the that have been observed here on Earth. They also found that if a black hole had a strong enough , it could impact a thick accretion disk to the point of causing it to align with the ' axis of rotation as well.

Because the simulations the team built are based on the theory of general relativity, their results may lead to new ways to test its fundamental soundness in ways that have never been tried before.

Explore further: Image: Hubble serves a slice of stars

More information: More movies of the new black hole simulations are available on McKinney's YouTube page.

Paper: Alignment of Magnetized Accretion Disks and Relativistic Jets with Spinning Black Holes, Science, DOI: 10.1126/science.1230811

ABSTRACT
Accreting black holes (BHs) produce intense radiation and powerful relativistic jets, which are affected by the BH's spin magnitude and direction. While thin disks might align with the BH spin axis via the Bardeen-Petterson effect, this does not apply to jet systems with thick disks. We used fully three-dimensional general relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations to study accreting BHs with various BH spin vectors and disk thicknesses with magnetic flux reaching saturation. Our simulations reveal a "magneto-spin alignment" mechanism that causes magnetized disks and jets to align with the BH spin near BHs and further away to reorient with the outer disk. This mechanism has implications for the evolution of BH mass and spin, BH feedback on host galaxies, and resolved BH images for SgrA* and M87.

Press release

Related Stories

Black hole jets

Jan 16, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes are irresistible sinks for matter and energy. They are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational clutches. Massive black holes (equal to millions or even ...

Ghostly gamma-ray beams blast from Milky Way's center

May 29, 2012

(Phys.org) -- As galaxies go, our Milky Way is pretty quiet. Active galaxies have cores that glow brightly, powered by supermassive black holes swallowing material, and often spit twin jets in opposite directions. ...

Black holes spinning faster than ever before

May 23, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two UK astronomers have found that the giant black holes in the centre of galaxies are on average spinning faster than at any time in the history of the Universe. Dr Alejo Martinez-Sansigre ...

Chandra data reveal rapidly whirling black holes

Jan 10, 2008

A new study using results from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory provides one of the best pieces of evidence yet that many supermassive black holes are spinning extremely rapidly. The whirling of these giant ...

The Milky Way's supermassive black hole

Aug 08, 2011

Supermassive black holes - objects with masses of millions or even billions of suns - are found at the nuclei of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy, for example, has a massive black hole at its core, albeit one ...

Recommended for you

Image: Hubble serves a slice of stars

2 hours ago

The thin, glowing streak slicing across this image cuts a lonely figure, with only a few foreground stars and galaxies in the distant background for company.

Evidence of a local hot bubble carved by a supernova

22 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

Jul 30, 2014

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 ...

User comments : 78

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2012
The plasma jets with magnetic fields is another way of describing electric birkeland currents. The dough-nut shaped "accretion disk" is then more likely a plasma torus and the EM radiation is caused by the acceleration of said plasma to relativistic speeds by the electric fields that must be present in this moving magnetic field. Rather than adding hypothetical BH's into the simulations, Anthony Peratt's 'Particle-in-cell' simulations of interacting plasma and Bostick's plasmoids have shown remarkably similar simulations of galactic formation/evolution. Being that plasma makes up over 99% of the matter in a galaxy, what we are observing is most likely a plasma phenomenon driven by the forces that dominates electrified plasma, EM forces.
Maggnus
3.8 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2012
Of course some EU proponent will misinterpret the results and suggest this somehow equates to an electrical phenomenom. Laughable. And sad.

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2012
Of course some gravity only proponent will try to deny the obvious. Since electricity is synonymous with magnetism, trying to explain one without the other is not only laughable but sad.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2012
Re: "Of course some EU proponent will misinterpret the results and suggest this somehow equates to an electrical phenomenom. Laughable. And sad."

From Joseph Novak's Learning, Creating and Using Knowledge ...

--

"Writing in 1340, Occam stressed that explanations should be economical and simple, with no more constructions than are needed to explain an event or phenomenon; ALL UNNECESSARY CAUSES and explanations should be scrupulously removed. This principle of excising unnecessary causes became known as 'Occam's razor.' Sir William Hamilton (1853) stressed again the importance of Occam's canon and termed it the 'law of parsimony.' Hamilton rephrased the law this way: 'NEITHER MORE NOR ONEROUS CAUSES ARE TO BE ASSUMED than are necessary to account for the phenomena.'"

--

So, you have a magnetic field, which typically go hand-in-hand with electric currents. You have a filament, which is what plasmas do when they conduct. And you have Occam's Razor.
rubberman
3 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Of course you Eu guys and gravity guys won't consider that both are required in order to model universal structure correctly and just keep arguing that it is one or the other. 1's from everyone!
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (17) Nov 16, 2012
Rub, when we map the travels of an elephant, do we really need to determine the variable added when a gnat lands on his ass? No, and that is why gravity can largely be ignored when dealing with electrified plasma. Gravity is fine for explaining how we don't fly off the surface of Earth and it may have something to do with certain orbits, but beyond that the capabilities of gravity are greatly over exaggerated.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 16, 2012
It's not like this is the only example of a lack of critical thinking happening in science right now. There is also the ion channel debacle in cell biology. Open your eyes to what the critics are saying in ALL of the disciplines of science, and you will occasionally be surprised to learn about very old controversies which are not mentioned in the textbooks our students are studying (Kuhn discussed this paradox in The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research).

So, one is left wondering: Do people believe the way they do because they have looked at both sides of these debates, and formulated their own personal, meaningful opinion on them? Or, is it that we've only informed them of one side of the debate -- leaving them simply incapable of thinking critically about our scientific theories?

See "Artificial ion channels created using DNA origami", as well as the comment attached to it ...

http://phys.org/n...ami.html
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2012
Re: "Of course you Eu guys and gravity guys won't consider that both are required in order to model universal structure correctly and just keep arguing that it is one or the other. 1's from everyone!"

No, this is not correct. Not only did Anthony Peratt incorporate gravity into his galactic models, but Wal Thornhill has also admitted that the centers of galaxies exhibit extreme gravity. The problem we do see, however, is that, far from the galactic core, the stars are simply too far apart from one another for their motions to be dominated by gravity. So, you have a choice to make: Add invisible matter or infer that the galaxies are actually dominated by E&M, with gravity as a consequence.

There's nothing irrational about investigating the possibility of the latter. In fact, the decision to not study it is comparatively less rational, for placing all of our bets onto one of the two inferences prematurely commits theorists, and invites them to defend their partial knowledge.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2012
Of course you Eu guys and gravity guys won't consider that both are required in order to model universal structure correctly and just keep arguing that it is one or the other. 1's from everyone!


Really? I'm a "gravity only proponent" am I? And you opened up your ESP blocking tin helmut to arrive at that conclusion I assume? Oh wait, perhaps I should just assume you will appologize for your assuming?

As to the EU proponents, it is a waste of time and space to bother debunking your crap. Been there, done that. Same old wrong arguments, same old wrong assumptions, same old pseudo-science.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Of course you Eu guys and gravity guys won't consider that both are required in order to model universal structure correctly and just keep arguing that it is one or the other. 1's from everyone!


Really? I'm a "gravity only proponent" am I? And you opened up your ESP blocking tin helmut to arrive at that conclusion I assume? Oh wait, perhaps I should just assume you will appologize for your assuming?

As to the EU proponents, it is a waste of time and space to bother debunking your crap. Been there, done that. Same old wrong arguments, same old wrong assumptions, same old pseudo-science.

I'm glad you stopped then, the last thing we need is more pseudo-science, like trying to explain magnetism without the required electric currents, and therefore electricity.
A2G
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2012
Rubberman has it right. This is what I have found in my research. To point to everything as being electric in origin is just plain wrong and points to cultism. These are not Birkland currents. In that the EU is just plain wrong. Those are ejection jets that actually will propel matter, not just plasma. They also have their highest velocities next to the source and slow as they move away. Does electricity do this? Does it slow down? NO.

But the "blackhole" causing the spinning is backwards as well. Intrinsic Spin. It occurs in all matter structures down to the sub-atomic. The magnetic fields cause the spin and not the other way around. I have proven this in my lab. It is not about electricity for the magnetic fields will work without electricity and everything has a magnetic component to it. We have just been looking at magnetic fields in the wrong way.

Back to work to explain it all.
A2G
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2012
One more hint. The wave-particle duality. In that mystery is a great solution and it is really really simple. It is not electricity and it is not all gravity. There is another answer that you have not considered. In that solution is also found the answer to the dual nature of all EM radiation as well as the ejection jets, accretion disks, etc.

Both sides of the argument now are not right. You want to be somewhere in the middle. Not at one extreme or the other.

Rubberman is thinking correctly.

rubberman
3.3 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2012
CD85- Nice analogy with the elephant...accurate on the galactic and universal scale. Hannes pointed it out too. But without gravity, you don't have stars. I agree 100% that to model a galaxies stellar motion based only on gravity, when considering that every star in the galaxy is a massive nuclear powered electromagnetic generator/plasma factory and then say that the fields don't effect stellar motion is seriously delusional. But I lack the physics background to put an equation to it because stellar gravity is also at play, as well as the local gravitational field produced by our heliosphere as it interacts with neighbouring systems. There are alot of variables that have to be taken into account, not to mention the puzzle of how all of the interstellar magnetic fields interact with each other as was pointed out by AP on another thread. If it is a giant electromagnetic web of connected structures, the EM force should produce visible phenomena we don't see. I think I know why we don't...
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 16, 2012
I do apologize Maggnus. I did do that. I also hope I didn't completely discount what I said prior to my little speech...with my little speech, but if I did then let me have it A2G. Nice to see you back by the way, I trust things worked out in the lab?
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (13) Nov 16, 2012
What do those magnetic fields consist of? Electrons? Moving electrons? Can you have a magnetic field without electrons present? And just exactly how does a magnetic field move without moving electrons? And those moving electrons create a current, correct? Answers to these questions may shed light on your and other theories.
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Re: "They also have their highest velocities next to the source and slow as they move away. Does electricity do this? Does it slow down? NO."

The problem with your logic is that you actually don't know what an electrical cosmology could be made to do -- because the same ad hoc modeling techniques which have buoyed conventional theories are not accepted as a valid approach to ANY cosmology other than the one which students have been conscripted into adopting.

Re: "To point to everything as being electric in origin is just plain wrong and points to cultism."

Not really. It's called a scientific debate. We call subjects like cosmology and astrophysics "wicked problems" for the reason that our ability to observe in these domains is severely restricted. In the field of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), based upon the work of Vygotsky, the proper way to make progress on wicked problems is to not jump to consensus, but rather to perfect the art of argumentation.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2012
Not really. It's called a scientific debate.


No, scientific debate assumes that both sides can understand the arguments of the other. EU proponents (mostly) don't have a clue what they are arguing for, or about. It not just that they are not right, they aren't even wrong.

I also hope I didn't completely discount what I said prior to my little speech...


Accepted, and no it didn't discount what you said prior :)
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Re: "If it is a giant electromagnetic web of connected structures, the EM force should produce visible phenomena we don't see."

We've known since the mid-50's that the Milky Way does not emit thermal radiation. The radiation mechanism is nonthermal -- in other words, synchrotron emission, the result of cosmic ray electrons spiraling about interstellar magnetic field lines.

Gerrit Verschuur has published many papers on the morphology of the interstellar medium. He states unequivocally, "Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitudes show that the interstellar gas is filamentary" -- an observation which should invite questions as to why these filaments do not disperse.

We also see anomalous "high-velocity clouds". Verschuur states in "The Invisible Universe" that, "large areas of sky are found to contain HI moving at velocities that are not expected if the gas is confined to the plane of the Galaxy". These "velocities" correspond to a common critical ionization velocity.
HannesAlfven
1.2 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
See the paper titled, "Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure" by Gerrit Verschuur, where he states:

"Analysis of Galactic neutral hydrogen emission profiles that have been corrected for sidelobe radiation confirm the existence of three distinct component line width regimes identified by Verschuur & Magnani in 1994. In addition, a fourth becomes recognizable in the data in directions of low total column density. The line width regimes are around 50 km s~1 (component 1a), 31 km s~1 (component 1b), 13 km s~1 (component 2), and 5.2 km s~1 for the narrow lines arising from cool H I (component 3)."

Now, go to wikipedia's entry for "critical ionization velocity," and look at the righthand column of values for CIV's of the universe's most common elements.

It's not a perfect match, but this is definitely worthy of further investigation, for these CIV's are specifically observed to be affiliated with "knots" within the filaments, and correlate with many dozens of WMAP hotspots
A2G
2 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2012
Light plus light in phase = brighter.

Light plus light out of phase = dark ?????

Well known to all. But how? Not with math. With a description of the exact mechanism that causes light to cancel light not on a wave basis but on a per photon basis.

This is at the core of the problems in QM and in making sense of the things we see in space. It is all tied together.

In that I have given you a clue as to where I am going. Once you truly understand how light can cause light to become darkness you are on the road to truth.

I am not going to reveal it all here. That is not how you present new theories. You do it in an organized way that a comment section does not allow for.

Back to work.
A2G
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2012
Cantdrive, Even in your question to me you already show your bent towards electricity instead of being open minded. As you should know that is not a good place to be until you can absolutely prove it.

Will you be happy if mankind finally has the answer and it is not your electric universe concept? Or are you so bound to your "beliefs" that you will resent it?

I think the latter.
A2G
2.8 / 5 (8) Nov 16, 2012
Rubberman, somewhat sadly I have completed all testing in the lab. That is my favorite thing. Experiments. No debating. No arguing. Just the pursuit of pure science. Where no one's opinion means jack.

It has to be right or it doesn't work.

Now putting it all together in an organized format. Hundreds of hours of video to pull out the best clips and put it into a presentation that will be challenging to the most advanced and yet able to be understood by high school students.

As Einstein said, if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

But this is such a new approach I have a lot of hurdles to overcome as you can see, even in this comment section people's bias can be a very hard thing to overcome.

Belief is a very powerful force, even when that belief is wrong.
HannesAlfven
1.1 / 5 (11) Nov 16, 2012
Does anybody care to comment on Verschuur's apparent identification of critical ionization velocities associated with knots embedded into interstellar filaments of HI hydrogen? A claim was made that, "If it is a giant electromagnetic web of connected structures, the EM force should produce visible phenomena we don't see." I responded to that claim with three important points, and have been ignored.

Do you guys need help? Should I act as my own devil's advocate, in order to demonstrate that your textbooks and Astrophysical Journal have completely failed to fill you in on this debate?
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (10) Nov 16, 2012
If you answered the question, you'd show me why I'm wrong. What is a magnetic field if it is not electrons?
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2012
I wrote it down Hannes, I am going to look at it for sure, but I am at work and if I am going to read and absorb it, this isn't the place right now. I will say that I wouldn't dispute it's premise as, velocity is the only means I can imagine in interstellar space that could keep any element in an ionized form.
RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 16, 2012
Hi everyone. No time, so briefly...
Some time back I pointed out that most large scale features evolve from/into a hybrid phenomena involving BOTH E-M and gravity. Where gravity causes cold matter to aggregate and form new stars OR where E-M flows/effects cause hot matter (plasma) to 'pinch' into aggregations of plasmoids at large scales in vast space 'clouds', they end up as same 'feature' once interplay of gravity and E-M settle into stable astronomical feature. For e.g. of how plasma flows may form large feature WITHOUT gravity involved, just imagine well-known Focus Device ( http://www.focusfusion.org/ ) processes on astronomical scale. In laboratory scale FD's, a plasmoid is formed where plasma 'self-pinches' into denser and hotter plasmoid 'feature'. Let's stop this bickering. Both 'sides' see larger picture, ie, that all sorts of processes occur at all scales/periods, which end up giving what is observed. Depends on starting scenarios. Cheers!
barakn
5 / 5 (1) Nov 16, 2012
If you answered the question, you'd show me why I'm wrong. What is a magnetic field if it is not electrons?

If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.
radek
1 / 5 (4) Nov 16, 2012
If you answered the question, you'd show me why I'm wrong. What is a magnetic field if it is not electrons?

If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.


it was rhetorical question: magnetic field does not exist without moving electric field
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2012
Re: "velocity is the only means I can imagine in interstellar space that could keep any element in an ionized form."

If CIV's are being observed, then that suggests that ionization could be common in interstellar space. But, we shouldn't take for granted a hypothesis for how cosmic plasmas behave -- especially in light of their observed laboratory behavior, which of course includes the phenomenon known as the double layer. As you likely know, double layers permit oppositely charged particles to sit side-by-side without recombining.

It's really quite problematic that scientific thinkers are so eager to accept extremely hypothetical and speculative concepts like dark matter, but then object when somebody questions an assumption embedded into theory about how cosmic plasmas behave -- a hypothesis which basically ignores phenomenon we see in the laboratory, in order to make its case.

There should be nothing extraordinary about questioning the cosmic plasma models.
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2012
A little bit of historical perspective could be helpful ...

From http://www.scient...e_09.pdf

The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfven

[...]

Magnetohydrodynamics

Alfvén's interest in magnetic fields laid the foundations of today's magnetohydrodynamic theory, a theory widely employed by astrophysicists. In the original formulations of the theory, Alfvén spoke of magnetic fields being "frozen" into neutral plasma, and the magnetohydrodynamic equations he formulated implied that the electric currents that create magnetic fields could be effectively ignored. Hence, the plasma activity on the Sun and in more remote space could be analyzed without reference to any larger domain of electric currents or electric circuits.

To this notion astronomers were readily attracted, and for a time they thought they had an ally in the brilliant electrical engineer.

[cont'd]
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2012
[cont'd]

Although his "fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics" led to his Nobel Prize in 1970, the background to this occasion is paradoxical. Through much of the 19th and 20th century, most astronomers and cosmologists had assumed the "vacuum" of space would not permit electric currents. Later, when it was discovered that all of space is a sea of electrically conductive plasma, the theorists reversed their position, asserting that any charge separation would be immediately neutralized. Here they found what they were looking for in Alfvén's frozen-in magnetic fields and in his magnetohydrodynamic equations. Electric currents could then be viewed as strictly localized and temporary phenomena—needed just long enough to create a magnetic field, to magnetize plasma, a virtually "perfect" conductor.

[cont'd]
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2012
[cont'd]

The underlying idea was that space could have been magnetized in primordial times or in early stages of stellar and galactic evolution, all under the control of higher-order kinetics and gravitational dynamics. All large scale events in space could still be explained in terms of disconnected islands, and it would only be necessary to look inside the "islands" to discover localized electromagnetic events—no larger electric currents or circuitry required. In this view, popularly held today, we live in a "magnetic universe" (the title of several recent books and articles), but not an electric universe. The point was stated bluntly by the eminent solar physicist Eugene Parker, "…No significant electric field can arise in the frame of reference of the moving plasma." But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically - and to his credit -

[cont'd]
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2012
[cont'd]

Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said.

In accord with Alvén's observations, American physicist, professor Alex Dessler, former editor of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, notes that he himself had originally fallen in with an academic crowd that believed electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. "My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described."

In retrospect, it seems clear that Alfvén considered his early theoretical assumption of frozen-in magnetic fields to be his greatest mistake,

[cont'd]
HannesAlfven
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2012
[cont'd]

a mistake perpetuated first and foremost by mathematicians attracted to Alfvén's magnetohydrodynamic equations. Alfvén came to recognize that real plasma behavior is too "complicated and awkward" for the tastes of mathematicians. It is a subject "not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories." It requires hands-on attention to plasma dynamics in the laboratory. Sadly, he said, the plasma universe became "the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong."

Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today "are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them."
barakn
3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2012
If you answered the question, you'd show me why I'm wrong. What is a magnetic field if it is not electrons?

If you don't know the answer, you shouldn't be commenting.


it was rhetorical question: magnetic field does not exist without moving electric field
Per wikipedia, a "rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply." However, cantdrive85's question has a ready and obvious reply - protons and any other particle with a net charge. Cantdrive85's grasp of physics is so tenuous that he appears to be under the impression that only electrons can create electric fields and thus magnetic fields.
RealityCheck
1.1 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
Hi HannesAlfven. Your double layer reminders are timely and valid in more than just astronomical context. That's what ideal/practical laboratory/commercial capacitors are all about; they can keep the double layer 'adjacent' without 'reconnection'. The separation/insulation layer between may be air, vacuum or even (in space) an induced space-matter 'non-conducting layer' which is forced by 'streamlining effects' to behave different from either 'charged' layer on either side. Only where there is the possibility/intrusion of a 'displacement current' between the layers will 're-connection' (ie, charge flow, or electric current etc) be possible. So I for one do not dismiss out of hand the many possiblities of gravity, plasma and neutral-space aspects which may behave as observed in astronomical contexts/flows. Cheers all; and play nice, eh, for time and research will tell all in the end. Why such animosity if all the answers (not to mention questions) are not yet 'in' and complete? Bye.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (12) Nov 17, 2012
However, cantdrive85's question has a ready and obvious reply - protons and any other particle with a net charge.


My question was directed towards A2G's claim that turbulent magnetic fields is what causes the currents to flow. I asked what those magnetic fields consist of, we all know (except A2G) it consists of moving charged particles, ELECTRIC CURRENTS. Ultimately, what A2G is saying is electric currents beget electric currents, but he is STILL claiming the cause to be magnetic fields. It's a circular argument, there is no magnetic field without moving charges (electric currents). The ball is in A2G's court to explain how he gets moving magnetic fields without moving charged particles.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2012
a "rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply." However, cantdrive85's question has a ready and obvious reply - protons and any other particle with a net charge. Cantdrive85's grasp of physics is so tenuous that he appears to be under the impression that only electrons can create electric fields and thus magnetic fields.


Comment deserves a five. Mouse pointer jumped,, sorry about that.
Q-Star
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2012
A little bit of historical perspective could be helpful ...


That's not historical perspective. It's a biography. But more than that it is SPAM.

It was just as inane this time as all the other times you've posted it. Can't you find something new? Why don't you try discussing physics instead of people sometime? It is a physics site you know. It's not a biography or historic site.

Rather than discuss the science you only want to discuss dead scientists. He's dead. So are his EU - Plasma Cosmology theories. You got stuck in the feeling of wisdom because at some point you read something written for the general public, analogy while neglecting to WORK on trying to learn the difficult stuff.

So typical of "general experts on all things" on the internet these days. You read someone analogizing to the uneducated, and just know that the hard stuff must be wrong,,, because YOU can't understand it.

Are you a graduate of the "Art Bell School of Metaphysical Sophistry"?
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2012
You read someone analogizing to the uneducated, and just know that the hard stuff must be wrong,,, because YOU can't understand it.


Well said!
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2012
Ok, so after reading all that ( well enough of it anyway) I think I recognize who you are. That you use the handle "Hannes Alfven" would suggest you would, at the least, try to understand the gist of the arguments that were laid out to you 5 years ago when you made exactly the same flawed, pseudo-scientific arguments you are starting to make now.

Alfven would be APPALLED at how little you have learned and how poorly you represent his position. He was wrong, but he was a scientist and he most likely would have come to the realization that his theory was an interesting aside.

Thunderbolts is a thoroughly discreditied scam-site that seeks to line the pockets of its founder. Period.
Caliban
1.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2012

It seems to me that the hypotheses/conclusions of this research are built upon assumptions that can't be allowed. Any and all of the effects they modeled can only be local effects, exterior to the event horizon of the BH itself.

Inside the BH, we don't know for certain what conditions exist. Are we talking about utradense matter? Ultradense energy? Some kind of hybrid of the two? A primordial state akin to conditions prior to the Big Bang?

If this isn't known, than how can it be assumed that electromagnetism is operative on the inside?

Exterior to the BH, this dilemma doesn't exist, but I don't see where the distinction is being made.

So, if I've missed it, my apologies.

If not, then the question stands.

Infinion
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2012
Hannes, I don't think it matters how many times you show evidence that supports EU cosmology here--that evidence is going to simply fall on deaf ears because people just aren't willing to consider any alternative theory. Instead, solid empirical evidence needs to be demonstrated and put in front of the scientific community so that it can no longer simply be ignored.

Just wait until the people behind the SAFIRE project finish creating an electrically-driven miniature sun in the lab while reproducing the several unexplained phenomena that occur on our own sun. Making empirical evidence is what these guys are good at. Until then, don't sweat trying to convince all the naysayers otherwise. They can be as shortsighted as they want to be until the day the tipping point comes around and slams into them
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2012
--that evidence is going to simply fall on deaf ears because people just aren't willing to consider any alternative theory.


No, that evidence is going to fail, because it has been shown, over and over again, to be incorrect. The same cries have been made for 10 years that I have been involved in it, and the same cries fail now as miserably as they failed then. The evidence has been presented, and refuted. Clearly. Consistantly.

People are not listening to your accusations of coverup, because you have been given every oppotunity to present your evidence, and the EVIDENCE has been found lacking.
Infinion
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2012


No, that evidence is going to fail, because it has been shown, over and over again, to be incorrect. The same cries have been made for 10 years that I have been involved in it, and the same cries fail now as miserably as they failed then. The evidence has been presented, and refuted. Clearly. Consistantly.

People are not listening to your accusations of coverup, because you have been given every oppotunity to present your evidence, and the EVIDENCE has been found lacking.


Sorry you feel that way, Maggnus.
XQuantumKnightX
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2012
Magnetic control of black hole to become class type III civilization.

How?

Let's stop bickering about the theories, but what if we can utilize this discovered fact and begin theorizing and implementation of a device that can harness the power of a black hole by controlling it with magnetic fields. These magnetic fields can be controlled with digital impulses from highly efficient solar powered satellite super capacitor amplified power transport networks modeled after know computer network protocols and topologies. These systems will digitally constructively interfere and tune collaborative magnetic waves to amplify the magnetic magnitued to reach beyond the control threshold of the black hole. This may be a black hole's weakness. (cont. next post ->)
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 18, 2012
implementation of a device that can harness the power of a black hole by controlling it with magnetic fields. These magnetic fields can be controlled with digital impulses from highly efficient solar powered satellite super capacitor amplified power transport networks modeled after know computer network protocols and topologies.


Shouldn't you first spend your time "theorizing and implementing" a way to get to the black hole. Until you get there, you can't do any harnessing, the best you can do is look at it, eons after the fact.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2012
These magnetic fields can be controlled with digital impulses from highly efficient solar powered satellite super capacitor amplified power transport networks modeled after know computer network protocols and topologies.

Jeeez. If ever I saw tech-gobbeldygook being spouted without any knowedge of any of the systms involved (or even of the environment they would be placed in): this takes first prize.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
Re: "Why such animosity if all the answers (not to mention questions) are not yet 'in' and complete?"

For those who are legitimately confused on this, there are several important things happening here ...

(1) The Web 2.0 format invites the humanization of what should be scientific dialogue. This problem is already known by the select few educators who have flipped their classrooms to in-class concept mapping format. They report that students switch their focus from the people talking to thinking in concepts.

(2) Scientific press releases make no mention of the inherent uncertainty of cosmology and astrophysics. The articles are written to appeal to people looking for certainty.

(3) Our systems of belief are constructed upon the concepts we are discussing here. Cognitive psychologists like David Ausubel and Lev Vygotsky show us that to question foundational ideas in science is equivalent to questioning a person's actual worldview. For most, they cannot be separated.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
(4) There exists an immunity to change which is supported when people permit themselves to become the subjects of their ideas. In tests by Kegan and Lahey, less than 1% of the population exhibits an ability to question their own worldviews (a self-transforming mindset). The first step is to switch from being subject to ideas, to making ideas the object of our thought.

(5) Our science evaluation standards invite students to memorize. Eric Mazur has demonstrated that the same questions, in qualitative format rather than quantitative problem sets, (which you would think would be easier) are typically not understood by straight-A students. These people may not consciously realize that they are incapable of questioning the materials they have memorized, but what happens is that it forces them to adopt the opinion of authority. David Ausubel's assimilation theory demonstrates that rote memorization interferes with meaningful learning.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
(6) We are living in an era marked by a debunking mindset. In this scientific culture, the goal is to eradicate uncertainty. The problem is that uncertainty serves a purpose in science, in that it guides us to better questions. So, when you see no point to uncertainty, you will unknowingly start to ask the same bad questions over and over.

(7) Students are not being taught how to think critically about science. That's because, unlike the modern high school literature class, we teach them only one worldview. They have little-to-no practice switching worldviews and questioning assumptions, and therefore confuse those who they see doing this as engaged in pseudo-scientific behavior.

(8) Our PhD programs are weeding out divergent thinkers. There is a 50% loss rate, and as Jeff Schmidt has written in Disciplined Minds, it is not politically neutral. The students who stop to think about what they are learning fall behind the "gung-ho" "ass-kissers" (Schmidt's words).
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
Re: "Why don't you try discussing physics instead of people sometime? It is a physics site you know. It's not a biography or historic site. "

The problem here is that history and biography is the source of our epistemology. It's a record of how we came to believe what we believe. Without understanding this, a person has absolutely no idea of how to formulate a meaningful opinion of what sort of uncertainty to attach to the cosmic plasma models. Keep in mind that this story is NOT told to engineers or scientists. The only exposure that people get to it is on chat boards like this one. So, what you're trying to tell us here is that people are supposed to somehow look at the equations of MHD and formulate an opinion on their veracity in the absence of any knowledge about how they came to be. The lesson of this era is that such selective instruction will tend to bias students towards a specialist mentality.

The stories of our scientific theories matter.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
Re: "Thunderbolts is a thoroughly discreditied scam-site that seeks to line the pockets of its founder. Period."

It's clear to me that this characterization is not based upon actually having met any of the people involved, for if you had decided to actually speak to them, you'd come to see that they care very deeply about this subject matter.

Peer review is not some perfect process which accurately bins out the winners of longstanding scientific debates. In such situations, we know from reports of now-established scientists that peer review exhibits a gatekeeper functionality. We know this because many well-established scientists today have complained that their first attempts to publish were widely obstructed.

For ill-structured controversies like this one, our only recourse is to explore and map out all of the lines of argumentation. This is the domain of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL), where the arguments mean more than claims of victory on either side.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
I'm going to repost this, since people seem to think that I'm not offering technical arguments ...

We've known since the mid-50's that the Milky Way does not emit thermal radiation. The radiation mechanism is nonthermal -- in other words, synchrotron emission, the result of cosmic ray electrons spiraling about interstellar magnetic field lines.

Gerrit Verschuur has published many papers on the morphology of the interstellar medium. He states unequivocally, "Neutral hydrogen (HI) surveys at high galactic latitudes show that the interstellar gas is filamentary" -- an observation which should invite questions as to why these filaments do not disperse. We also see anomalous "high-velocity clouds".

Verschuur states in "The Invisible Universe" that, "large areas of sky are found to contain HI moving at velocities that are not expected if the gas is confined to the plane of the Galaxy". These "velocities" correspond to a common critical ionization velocity.

Response anyone?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
From "Galactic Neutral Hydrogen Emission Profile Structure" by Gerrit Verschuur:

"Analysis of Galactic neutral hydrogen emission profiles that have been corrected for sidelobe radiation confirm the existence of three distinct component line width regimes identified by Verschuur & Magnani in 1994. In addition, a fourth becomes recognizable in the data in directions of low total column density. The line width regimes are around 50 km s~1 (component 1a), 31 km s~1 (component 1b), 13 km s~1 (component 2), and 5.2 km s~1 for the narrow lines arising from cool H I (component 3)."

Now, go to wikipedia's entry for "critical ionization velocity," and look at the righthand column of values for CIV's of the universe's most common elements. It's not a perfect match, but this is definitely worthy of further investigation, for these CIV's are specifically observed to be affiliated with "knots" within the filaments, and correlate with many dozens of WMAP hotspots.

Response?

Anyone?
Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012


Response?

Anyone?


Sure, I have a response. But unlike some, I don't need to spam to make a point.

This link gives the best overall assessment geared to the lay reader I've seen yet.

http://scientopia...s-wrong/

Plasma cosmology and electric universe theory is foolishness. See how few words that took?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
Notice how that article begins ...

"In my previous post, I showed direct statistical evidence that the Arp notion of non-cosmological redshifts for quasars is wrong."

So, what they're saying is that we should not even bother to question the notion that quasars can -- through gravitational lensing -- shine THROUGH galaxies. But, when you take a closer look at gravitational lensing, you come to see that -- typically -- lensing cannot mathematically work in the absence of copious amounts of dark matter to create the lens. So, a concept which has started out as an attempt to reconcile a failure of the Big Bang theory -- dark matter -- is assumed to simply be true so that we can then discount as important the anomalous observation of a high-redshift quasar in front of a low-redshift galaxy.

How many speculations are required to establish your certainty?
Maggnus
3 / 5 (2) Nov 19, 2012
It's clear to me that this characterization is not based upon actually having met any of the people involved, for if you had decided to actually speak to them, you'd come to see that they care very deeply about this subject matter.


In 1996 I may have agreed with you; in that, at that point, the idea was novel enough to merit some thought. Very little thought as it turned out, because the underlying foundation upon which the original premise was made was so incredibly, foolishly wrong.

No, not just wrong. To say it was wrong would be to suggest there was room for some scientific debate. There wasn't--once looked at with even a modicum of seriousness, it could be seen clearly that it was an empty premise.

In the late 90's and early 2000's a lot of forum time (note NOT scientific time) was spent by people who actually know about such things, explaining to advocats of this silly premise WHY it was silly. Over and over. And over. And over. **cont***
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
From the article ...

Re: "Unfortunately, rhetoric being what it is, it's very easy to find sites on the web (and books) that promote the notion of plasma cosmology, and after reading them it's easy for the interested but uninformed layman to be convinced."

Philosophically, this is what is called speaking from a "positivist philosophy". It's a popular notion today that all questions in science have a right answer, and many wrong ones. And yet, what we see happening in science education is really a realization that this approach is inviting our science students to simply memorize this supposed "right answer" -- to the detriment of building a conceptual understanding of the subject matter that they are trying to understand. This alternative approach, which science education is increasingly shifting towards, is a "constructivist philosophy". Constructivism makes a distinction between well-structured and ill-structured problems. For the latter, we focus on arguments.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
Re: "In the late 90's and early 2000's a lot of forum time (note NOT scientific time) was spent by people who actually know about such things"

Um ... Not quite. I've seen all of the critiques. In fact, I went through all of them with the theorists, and actually listened to their responses. The mistake that many people make is in permitting themselves to listen to one side more than the other. You have to give both sides equal time. If all you're doing is listening to Tim Thompson, APODNereid (who might actually be Tim Thompson), the BAUT forum, Tom Bridgman and Leroy Ellenberger, without digging for the responses to those critiques, you've failed to put the effort into the Electric Universe which you have the conventional theories.

That's not how critical thinking happens.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
From the link ...

"However, let's go ahead and give it the benefit of the doubt (way too much benefit, but bear with me) of saying that it's an idea inspired by trying to explain something that may not be satisfactorily explained by mainstream science. An example of something like this is MOND, or "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics"."

Oops. Does the author realize that the EU advocates for E-MOND?

Re: "Standard Newtonian gravity can't explain the observed rotation speeds of galaxies. The right answer is that there is dark matter in those galaxies; we know this is the right answer because there is a whole lot of other evidence for dark matter."

Positivist philosophy, again. Also, a failure to address the philosophical problem of unconceived alternatives. This author simply assumes that, without actually elaborating alternative paradigms, that they would be able to automatically recognize what all of those alternative inferences would be.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
More from the article ...

Re: "Even if the "standard" explanation has a flaw, when you introduce an alternate explanation to address that flaw, your alternate explanation must explain everything the standard explanation already explains."

Okay, so this guy appears to come from the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today forum. The underlying worldview there is that theories arrive -- much like a stork delivering a baby -- all dressed up and ready to be critiqued. If it is good, they reason, then the theorist should be able to defend the theory to a panel of "experts" who are not trained in this new idea.

This view of the world of science is not supported by reality. Theory-making is initially a creative process which depends upon interdisciplinary synthesis. In cosmology, theories arrive partially complete, and it is the duty of people -- all people -- to attempt to elaborate them to see if they can be made to work.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
More from that article ...

"Given the wide range of observations that standard gravity-based expanding-Universe cosmology explains, there's really no need for a gigantic rethink of all of it such as plasma cosmology offers."

So, again, he's assuming that our work in cosmology and astrophysics is basically pretty much done -- even though we can only confidently identify 5% of the universe's matter; even as parallax only works to 1% the diameter of the Milky Way; and even as we still can't see anything happening from 10^-19 meters down to 10^-35 meters!

And so, those of us who are simply unhappy with such proclamations of confidence are supposed to accept that this extremely long line of speculations towards this predetermined conclusion (a Big Bang, etc) did not err along the way at all. The underlying notion is that it is absolutely ludicrous that some crazies might argue for hedging our bets within the most speculative disciplines.

Yay, monolithic science!
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
More from the article ...

"Given that we're able to explain all the orbits in the solar system with a straightforward application of gravity, where's the problem that plasma cosmology is supposed to solve?"

The author narrows the focus to orbital consistency, and from there argues that since there are no anomalies on that specific topic, then there is no motivation for questioning the conventional hypotheses and assumptions.

What about dark matter? What about the failure of quantum mechanics to work with Relativity? What about this problematic notion of gravity which repels instead of attracting? Why are the error bars on the gravitational "constant" getting BIGGER over time?!

What I'm picking up from your glowing assessment of this questionable critique is that you were willing to accept pretty much any critique -- regardless of its quality -- as a conclusive refutation.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 19, 2012
And here we go again. It is simply not worth the effort.

Nothing in what you have posted has changed from what you were arguing in 2001. You are as wrong now as you were then. Nutty as a fruitcake.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Nov 19, 2012
Plasma cosmology and electric universe theory is foolishness. See how few words that took? - Q

One day I'll have to get around to actually reading the EU theory. But after reading your astronomers attempt to dismiss Electro-magnetism using the paperclip and a magnet vs. the gravity of earth...I can see why alternate theories are always coming up. I could say that I can debunk the standard theory based around dark matter by asking the following questions:

Does it follow any of the laws of physics as we know them?
How can something have selective gravity? and not be gravitationally attracted to itself?

Q-Star
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2012
I could say that I can debunk the standard theory based around dark matter by asking the following questions:


You could say that, but you would be wrong.

Does it follow any of the laws of physics as we know them?


Yes as a dark matter (pun intended) of fact, it does.

How can something have selective gravity?


It doesn't.

and not be gravitationally attracted to itself?


It is.

Does that answer your debunking questions?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
Re: "Nothing in what you have posted has changed from what you were arguing in 2001. You are as wrong now as you were then. Nutty as a fruitcake."

I'm not sure who you think that I am, but I learned of the EU in 2005. Is it not possible that multiple people might actually agree on the various mistakes in theory and approach which we are seeing in conventional science? Positivism is hardly an inspiring methodology for dealing with the most complex questions man has ever asked.

Re: "It is simply not worth the effort."

Your mistake is in thinking that the "effort" is some sort of nuisance. Luckily, experts in computer-supported collaborative learning and critical thinkers alike know better -- that the "effort" is in fact the point when it comes to badly structured problems. Positivism is an antiquated philosophy. The world is rightly moving on to a willingness to entertain the questioning of assumptions and hypotheses in speculative domains which are clearly underperforming.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
More from the article ...

"What you've got, really, is a lot of nice sounding technical jargon that ultimately doesn't make clear what it is that they're really saying."

In other words, he's going to tell you why it's wrong even though he's not understood exactly what it is that they are claiming. He could have actually contacted the theorists and engaged them into a conversation, or read one of their many books (or the free Essential Guide) -- which are all very explicit on what is being claimed:

The claim of the Electric Universe is that, based upon the observation that 99% of the observable universe is matter within the plasma state, that there should be nothing exotic or even controversial about considering the behavior of laboratory plasma phenomenon (including double layers, critical ionization velocities, Birkeland Currents, Marklund convection, z-pinches, electric fields in plasmas, electron drifts, etc) when inferring the behavior of our astronomical observations.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
The article goes on ...

"In short, where's the math? If you're going to make quantitative predictions about where things are going, we need to know the equations that go along with your nice words."

So, now the author exhibits a lack of understanding of what is happening within physics education research. Eric Mazur, a Harvard physics professor, has demonstrated conclusively that students are not understanding the concepts of physics. He consistently demonstrates that straight-A students will ALMOST ALWAYS fail the same tests, when they are given in qualitative, concept-driven format (the force concept inventory). In other words, the students are memorizing the problem sets.

And, although much math has indeed been proposed -- by Anthony Peratt and Hannes Alfven himself -- the truth is that we can also, of course, argue over the cosmic plasma models themselves.

Those who are paying attention will observe that the debate here is at the inferential step, and it involves concepts.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
Another apparent problem with the critique ...

Re: "If you (somehow) manage to have two short parallel lengths of current all going in one direction, then the strength of the force between them drops off as 1/r2, just like gravity, once the distance between the two currents is large compared to their length. But, you can't have this, as all the charge from that current has to go somewhere. So, in practice, if you have a small bit of current, you have to have a loop."

Keep in mind that the interstellar medium is observed to be extremely filamentary. Verschuur does not characterize these filaments as circular. So, whatever this person's thought experiment is based upon, it's not observations.

But, also remember that for plasmas, we use the term "quasi-neutrality" when the numbers of electrons and protons are equal. That term is designed to differentiate from the condensed-matter state of "neutrality", because conductance is a function of charge mobility, i.e. plasmas conduct.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
The big picture here is not actually clarified by this particular blog posting. I wouldn't characterize this post as an effective critical piece, and of the many critiques I've seen, I'd be embarrassed to show this one to the EU theorists.

The big picture is this: Conventional theorists are trying to convince the world that we need not build alternative scientific frameworks for problem-solving within the speculative domains of cosmology and astrophysics. The real problem for critical thinkers is that it's become clear that an alternative scientific framework could indeed be constructed such that the current set of anomalies are all resolved.

The approach being advocated is that we should begin this lengthy process of expanding this emerging EU framework into other scientific domains. That work has actually already begun for biology, but all thoughtful EU advocates will freely admit that much work remains to be done. To do that, however, requires a deep engagement of the subject.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
One last thing ...

Re: "In 1996 I may have agreed with you; in that, at that point, the idea was novel enough to merit some thought."

Although these ideas have certainly branched into new directions, the idea that electricity is dominant is as old as the mythology of Zeus -- who is recorded to be holding a "thunderbolt". The thing is this: Check any of the standard forms of these "thunderbolts", and NONE of them look like the Lichtenberg morphology which you are accustomed to seeing in the sky. But, all of Zeus' thunderbolts nevertheless do exhibit the characteristic shapes known to plasma physicists as the z-pinch. The very fact that those people were able to deduce a morphology which we had to build great laboratories to observe in detail should serve as a red alert that they might have witnessed these forms in the sky.

Not only is monolithic science ineffective, but it also potentially lures us into a possibly false sense of comfort that the sky never changes.
Q-Star
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 19, 2012
One last thing ...


If only that were true. But I do suspect it is not.
Caliban
not rated yet Nov 19, 2012

It seems to me that the hypotheses/conclusions of this research are built upon assumptions that can't be allowed. Any and all of the effects they modeled can only be local effects, exterior to the event horizon of the BH itself.

Inside the BH, we don't know for certain what conditions exist. Are we talking about utradense matter? Ultradense energy? Some kind of hybrid of the two? A primordial state akin to conditions prior to the Big Bang?

If this isn't known, than how can it be assumed that electromagnetism is operative on the inside?

Exterior to the BH, this dilemma doesn't exist, but I don't see where the distinction is being made.

So, if I've missed it, my apologies.

If not, then the question stands.


Let me clarify. From my reading, it appears that it is being claimed that the entire, aggregate magnetic force of all the mass which has entered the BH is now being exerted by the BH itself, as opposed to only the force of the **externally located**, mass
contd
Caliban
not rated yet Nov 19, 2012
contd

...of the accretion disk, polar jets, and mass in nearby space close enough to also contribute to the magnetic field.

So, my question is --are they saying that this Jet behavior is the result of the sum of the magnetic field of all the matter contained within the BH, PLUS the externally produced magnetic field of accretion disk, jets, etc-- or only due to the magnetic field produced external to the BH --ONLY the accretion disk, jets, and nearby matter in space?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2012
Q, talk about a crank, "I don't understand it, so it's not true!" I think Hannes pretty well shredded that non-scientific psuedo-skeptic.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2012
I could say that I can debunk the standard theory based around dark matter by asking the following questions:


You could say that, but you would be wrong.

Does it follow any of the laws of physics as we know them?


Yes as a dark matter (pun intended) of fact, it does.

How can something have selective gravity?


It doesn't.

and not be gravitationally attracted to itself?


It is.

Does that answer your debunking questions?


Haha...well...yes, in the same way that if the waiter asks you if you prefer the chicken or the fish and you answer "yes".

But to answer the above questions in the way that you did would mean that we have had some breakthroughs regarding DM.

Other than gravitational effects assumed to be caused by DM, what other properties can we now attribute to it based on observations?