Hubble observes glowing, fiery shells of gas

Mar 04, 2013
Credit: ESA/Hubble and NASA

(Phys.org) —It may look like something from "The Lord of the Rings," but this fiery swirl is actually a planetary nebula known as ESO 456-67. Set against a backdrop of bright stars, the rust-colored object lies in the constellation of Sagittarius (The Archer), in the southern sky.

Despite the name, these ethereal objects have nothing at all to do with planets; this misnomer came about over a century ago, when the first astronomers to observe them only had small, poor-quality telescopes. Through these, the nebulae looked small, compact, and planet-like—and so were labeled as such.

When a star like the sun approaches the end of its life, it flings material out into space. Planetary nebulae are the intricate, glowing shells of dust and gas pushed outwards from such a star. At their centers lie the remnants of the original stars themselves—small, dense white dwarf stars.

In this image of ESO 456-67, it is possible to see the various layers of material expelled by the . Each appears in a different hue—red, orange, yellow, and green-tinted bands of gas are visible, with clear patches of space at the heart of the nebula. It is not fully understood how planetary nebulae form such a wide variety of shapes and structures; some appear to be spherical, some elliptical, others shoot material in waves from their polar regions, some look like hourglasses or figures of eight, and others resemble large, messy —to name but a few.

Explore further: Gravitational waves according to Planck

Related Stories

Hubble Captures Stars Going Out in Style

Sep 11, 2007

The colorful, intricate shapes in these NASA Hubble Space Telescope images reveal how the glowing gas ejected by dying Sun-like stars evolves dramatically over time.

The Colorful Demise of a Sun-Like Star

Feb 13, 2007

This image, taken by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, shows the colorful "last hurrah" of a star like our Sun. The star is ending its life by casting off its outer layers of gas, which formed a cocoon around ...

Hubble sees a planetary nebula in the making

Oct 12, 2012

(Phys.org)—The Universe is filled with mysterious objects. Many of them are as strange as they are beautiful. Among these, planetary nebulae are probably one of the most fascinating objects to behold in ...

The Helix nebula: Bigger in death than life

Oct 04, 2012

(Phys.org)—A dying star is refusing to go quietly into the night, as seen in this combined infrared and ultraviolet view from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX), which ...

Image: A chameleon sky

Sep 03, 2010

The sands of time are running out for the central star of this the Hourglass Nebula.

Recommended for you

Gravitational waves according to Planck

3 hours ago

Scientists of the Planck collaboration, and in particular the Trieste team, have conducted a series of in-depth checks on the discovery recently publicized by the Antarctic Observatory, which announced last spring that it ...

Infant solar system shows signs of windy weather

3 hours ago

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have observed what may be the first-ever signs of windy weather around a T Tauri star, an infant analog of our own Sun. This may help ...

Finding hints of gravitational waves in the stars

9 hours ago

Scientists have shown how gravitational waves—invisible ripples in the fabric of space and time that propagate through the universe—might be "seen" by looking at the stars. The new model proposes that ...

How gamma ray telescopes work

10 hours ago

Yesterday I talked about the detection of gamma ray bursts, intense blasts of gamma rays that occasionally appear in distant galaxies. Gamma ray bursts were only detected when gamma ray satellites were put ...

The frequency of high-energy gamma ray bursts

12 hours ago

In the 1960s a series of satellites were built as part of Project Vela.  Project Vela was intended to detect violations of the 1963 ban on above ground testing of nuclear weapons.  The Vela satellites were ...

User comments : 41

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
not rated yet Mar 04, 2013
"It is not fully understood how planetary nebulae form such a wide variety of shapes and structures" ...

The material travels along the magnetic fields generated by both the star and the process of it's transformation to a dwarf. Since no two stars are EXACTLY the same, why would the planetary Nebulae generated during this process be? I would expect similarities for two stars of the same class...but never the same.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
"It is not fully understood how planetary nebulae form such a wide variety of shapes and structures"


The material travels along the magnetic fields generated by both the star and the process of it's transformation to a dwarf.


Some part of it does, much of it doesn't.The explosive event imparts momentum to the ejected material.

Since no two stars are EXACTLY the same, why would the planetary Nebulae generated during this process be? I would expect similarities for two stars of the same class...but never the same.


The environment of space where the planetary nebulae forms probably has the greatest influence on the differences, ie, the composition, temperature and density of the surrounding medium,,,, nearby sources of gravitational influences,, and near by magnetic fields,,

I'd go with the composition, temperature, and density of the environment being the most influential. (And the most difficult to model. Because of the number of variables.)
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 05, 2013
Agreed the number of differing variables is staggering, it's actually the similarities that lead to the above conclusion. The number of planetary nebula that display symmetrical or asymmetrical lobes with a uniform curve and a definitive boundary is simply too great for there to not be an element of commonality to the conditions in the space that ejecta travel through.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
is simply too great for there to not be an element of commonality to the conditions in the space that ejecta travel through.


I quite agree, but the commonality is probably a simple item, an obvious item,,, my thought it is the shear magnitude of a supernova event.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 05, 2013
Q- as an astronomer you may be able to answer this. Do they doppler image these planetary nebula so that we can determine from what perspective we are viewing it? The above image as an example, appears spherical, but if we are looking directly at a "lobe" the spherical appearance is an optical effect.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2013
Do they doppler image these planetary nebula so that we can determine from what perspective we are viewing it?


The short answer is, it would not tell you much,,, the object, a cloud in this case, has to have some appreciable velocity relative to the observer.

Doppler shift can only tell whether or not the object has a significant amount of rotation (Comparing the redshift of one side to the redshift of the other.)

If it has a significant radial velocity, the doppler effect can indicate the magnitude of the radial component, and only generally whether is toward the observer or away. (Comparing the averaged whole of the redshift.)

Doppler analysis can't tell you anything about the proper motion of an object, how it is moving across the observers field of view. That is measured time elapsed studies, images years apart, for nearby objects with significant relative velocity moving in just the right direction.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 05, 2013

Ahh. I thought that if this was viewed "lobe on" but not directly, the lobe on the far side would be more redshifted and a portion of it may be visible against the lobe in the foreground.

is simply too great for there to not be an element of commonality to the conditions in the space that ejecta travel through.


I quite agree, but the commonality is probably a simple item, an obvious item,,, my thought it is the shear magnitude of a supernova event.


I also once thought the same regarding it being the initial event that caused the structures to appear as they do, except the time it takes for these nebula to evolve into what we see now would suggest an ongoing process/continuous effect as these objects are light years across.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I also once thought the same regarding it being the initial event that caused the structures to appear as they do, except the time it takes for these nebula to evolve into what we see now would suggest an ongoing process/continuous effect as these objects are light years across.


The processes are not mysterious, just complex,,, take a little thermodynamics, mix in some fluid dynamics, add some electrodynamics, apply some classical kinematics and dynamics,,,, mix thoroughly with a gazillion particles and ya have the final shape of your shell of gas.

My point? There is no single, simple force that will explain what we are looking at. Trying learn an "isolated" area of physics and apply to every situation will never get ya close to an answer to a question. Ya have to start with a solid foundation in the "fundamentals".

Ya may notice that more than a few people who comment here have a "favorite" force, and make it do everything. why? It's easy, it's WRONG, but it's easy
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 06, 2013

"The processes are not mysterious, just complex,,, take a little thermodynamics, mix in some fluid dynamics, add some electrodynamics, apply some classical kinematics and dynamics..."

I totally agree (you forgot elemental composition :P)

"My point? There is no single, simple force that will explain what we are looking at."

I have to disagree in this case. (however as far as gravity alone shaping the universe I totally agree) The similar structure is indicitive of a common variable. All lobes EXTEND outwards from the source, all have a defined arcing boundary that extends from the source to the outermost matter/energy (despite the event having occurred thousands of years ago), the source remains fixed in relation to the lobes which indicates all the matter is bound in the same IRF. M2-9 is the most striking example I can think of where the conditions clearly point to a field shaping the ejecta.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
I totally agree (you forgot elemental composition :P)


Didn't I say something about mixing "thoroughly with a gazillion particles"?

The similar structure is indicitive of a common variable.


There are "physics" which are common. Not a single variable. There are many common variables, that's why it's so wrong to single out just one.

the source remains fixed in relation to the lobes which indicates all the matter is bound in the same IRF. M2-9 is the most striking example I can think of where the conditions clearly point to a field shaping the ejecta.


The shapes and forms that we observe are much more varied than you imply. Ya can't rest a theory on a few observations out of thousands of observations. If your theory applied to all/most of the observations fine, but your "observations" are the exceptions, not the rule.

Electrodynamics are involved sure, but so are thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, classical mechanics, etc, there is no single "special" cause.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2013
Glowing, fiery shells of noxious gas?

I can see that any day by watching any Conservative "news" show. Faux news comes to mind.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 06, 2013
There are "physics" which are common. Not a single variable.

I'll take it you mean other than the general structure of the "lobed" nebula we have been speaking of and the fact that there is an EM field present which accompanies all massive bodies. But let's approach it from this way:

Using the physics that you know, how can most of the ejecta from a lobed nebula that is light years across display a visible connection to a body smaller than earth that it came from if all of the material in the ejecta was emmitted in an explosive event that at the biggest stretch lasted for days, thousands of years before we see said nebula? If you don't know for sure I'd love your best guess....
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
Using the physics that you know, how can most of the ejecta from a lobed nebula that is light years across display a visible connection to a body smaller than earth that it came from if all of the material in the ejecta was emmitted in an explosive event that at the biggest stretch lasted for days, thousands of years before we see said nebula? If you don't know for sure I'd love your best guess....


Ya are asking for the specifics of a few, and all I can say is each one can only be considered individually. There is no one answer that fits "normal" as far as a single variable goes.

From the article,

It is not fully understood how planetary nebulae form such a wide variety of shapes and structures; some appear to be spherical, some elliptical, others shoot material in waves from their polar regions, some look like hourglasses or figures of eight, and others resemble large, messy stellar explosions—to name but a few.


Ya seem to want a single "answer". There isn't one.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
"Do they doppler image these planetary nebula so that we can determine from what perspective we are viewing it?"

There have been a few studies that utilize longslit and echelle spectra to create velocity maps of planetary nebulae. These can help untangle and clarify the 3D structure of these objects (e.g. which end of a double-lobed feature is nearer). A recent study of the quadrupolar PN NGC 5189 is a good example of the technique of velocity mapping in use: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1297
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2013
"Do they doppler image these planetary nebula so that we can determine from what perspective we are viewing it?"

There have been a few studies that utilize longslit and echelle spectra to create velocity maps of planetary nebulae. These can help untangle and clarify the 3D structure of these objects (e.g. which end of a double-lobed feature is nearer). A recent study of the quadrupolar PN NGC 5189 is a good example of the technique of velocity mapping in use: http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1297


I quoted your entire comment so others would be sure to notice it.

I just pulled down the entire paper. It looks like good work indeed, I'm looking forward to reading the entire thing. I was totally unaware of that particular paper. Thanks,,
rubberman
3 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013
Thanks YYZ, I did read the entire thing. Very ingenuitive technique for the 3D mapping and the various exposures at differing wavelengths provide a much more complete picture of how this PN evolved to this form over time. (I would love to know the physics behind multiple ejection events, especially since gravitational compression is cited as the prime driver of a supernova)

"Ya are asking for the specifics of a few, and all I can say is each one can only be considered individually. There is no one answer that fits "normal" as far as a single variable goes."

"Ya seem to want a single "answer". There isn't one."

You think there are multiple different mechanisms at play in each PN which produce a common feature of connectivity to the ejecta from the source as displayed by lobed PN? No one variable is consistent which would produce this? That my friend is harder to believe than dark matter.... but if you don't want to take a crack at it, no biggy.

Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
(I would love to know the physics behind multiple ejection events, especially since gravitational compression is cited as the prime driver of a supernova)


If ya are up to the maths involved, and have the foundation in general physics, ya would probably fine great enjoyment and countless hours of wonder if ya could get your hands on a copy of "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carrol & Ostlie. It's the best text available written on the junior/senior undergraduate level.

No one variable is consistent which would produce this? That my friend is harder to believe than dark matter.... but if you don't want to take a crack at it, no biggy.


Ya just can't turn off forces that actually exist in order to simplify a situation in which ya want to present a single favored force.

rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
One day we will actually image one of these events in real time (you know the 2 candidates) and record the physics from the onset, then we'll be able to answer in much more diffinitive fashion the hows and the why's behind the evolution of these structures.
Q - I'll be more than happy to flood post and take a crack at the explanation I asked you for. I could start with the feature of the connectivity itself, what classically educated physicist doesn't want to read 3 or 4 thousand characters on how EM and it's various manifestations contribute to the lobed structure of PN? At worst you and YYZ could point out the flaws...but at that point I would say you would have to provide your explanation...so that I may return the favor.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
I would love to know the physics behind multiple ejection events, especially since gravitational compression is cited as the prime driver of a supernova


There is no other "prime driver" that adequately describes the observations. There several different classes of supernovae and even more varieties of remnants ya want to explained.

The nodes ya wish to explain are formed formed from the interactions of matter, temperature, gravity, electrodynamics, fluid mechanics, magnetism, etc, each is different as to it's contribution in any one particular situation. It's like the human genome, each is unique and it is a total of all the constituent parts that make the whole. If ya want an explanation for ONE particular object, ya would best just stick THAT ONE objects name into the google and read up on THAT ONE object.

This venue is not conducive to a more detailed explanation. Try to get ya hands on that text I recommended,,, there is none better.
rubberman
3 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013
I wouldn't be turning off all of the forces, they are all still there. I would just be pointing out the features that EM would be responsible for. With my rudimentary knowledge of the fundamentals I could incorporate some simple observations regarding gravity's effect after the event and the gradual transition to thermal equilibrium, but that isn't material I have researched as extensively as EM and magnetic interaction.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
how EM and it's various manifestations contribute to the lobed structure of PN?


Contribute, your word, and is exactly the point I have been trying to convey.

But I fear, that is not what ya are actually seeking, ya seem to be looking for the ONE true force. There isn't ONE, there are several. And every explanation must account for ALL them.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
I would just be pointing out the features that EM would be responsible for.


But in those features, ya'll be accounting for what the supernova was, Type I (and one of several subclasses) or Type II (and one of several subclasses), what the remnant is, (white dwarf, neutron star, black hole), what environment (gas, elements, particles, nearby objects) existed prior to the SN event, etc, etc, etc, ALL of those items must be taken into consideration. Each event has a different make-up of variable parameters.

I could incorporate some simple observations regarding gravity's effect after the event and the gradual transition to thermal equilibrium, but that isn't material I have researched as extensively as EM and magnetic interaction.


That is why I always preach that acquiring a foundation must precede an area expertise. Ya can't learn Einstein until ya have first mastered Newton. Ya learn QED until ya have first mastered Maxwell, etc, etc,,,
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
I would love to know the physics behind multiple ejection events, especially since gravitational compression is cited as the prime driver of a supernova


There is no other "prime driver" that adequately describes the observations. There several different classes of supernovae and even more varieties of remnants ya want to explained.


Neither does gravitational compression in multiple ejection events, regardless of how eloquent the math may be. I didn't ask you "how" the lobes formed. I asked you specifically how the connection to the source of the lobes is maintained given the "explosive" nature of a supernova. This is my basis for concluding a magnetic field is present and maintained, and despite the back and forth you haven't provided a response other than to say that it's "alot" of things. If you aren't sure that's fine, but the only way you can tell someone is incorrect is if you HAVE the correct answer.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013
yyz, also want to say thanks, that's a really interesting paper.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
@ rubberman - one more quick point - it is not just that there are many variables to each outflow, it is also the case that there are multiple outflows where the variables are (largely or slightly) different for each.

You may already have recognized this, but it wasn't clear in your comments.

Good discussion guys!
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2013
I didn't ask you "how" the lobes formed. I asked you specifically how the connection to the source of the lobes is maintained given the "explosive" nature of a supernova.


It is maintained by the interactions due to electromagnetic forces, gravitational forces, the thermal energies present in the ambient matter and the ejected matter. There is no more honest answer.

This is my basis for concluding a magnetic field is present and maintained,


In some cases that is true, and in some cases that is not true. And in most cases that is only partially true with varying degrees of true-ness.

and despite the back and forth you haven't provided a response other than to say that it's "alot" of things.


That is the only response I can honestly give, because that is the way it works.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
Thanks Maggnus. The massive quantity of variables involved are the reason I chose to post my original comment. With the number of possible combinations of stellar classes, chemical compostition, additional massive bodies in the vicinity, supernova types etc. A pattern this distinctive couldn't repeat without a common denominator. Q actually admitted this in his second post...at which point I thought we'd discuss what it could be, as he disagreed with my conclusion. A pattern that repeats, a common denominator that explains the repetition. If all of the differing variables were as influential as the common denominator, the PN would ALL be totally different. How do you think lobed ejections occur from an exploding sphere that leaves a smaller sphere behind? With no field present the ejecta should be propelled in ALL directions, not hemispheric lobes.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
I didn't ask you "how" the lobes formed. I asked you specifically how the connection to the source of the lobes is maintained given the "explosive" nature of a supernova.


It is maintained by the interactions due to electromagnetic forces, gravitational forces, the thermal energies present in the ambient matter and the ejected matter. There is no more honest answer.

This is my basis for concluding a magnetic field is present and maintained,


In some cases that is true, and in some cases that is not true. And in most cases that is only partially true with varying degrees of true-ness.

and despite the back and forth you haven't provided a response other than to say that it's "alot" of things.


That is the only response I can honestly give, because that is the way it works.


Thanks Q, this I cannot disagree with and I appreciate your honesty.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
If all of the differing variables were as influential as the common denominator, the PN would ALL be totally different.


Ya are assuming facts, not in the evidence, "sameness".

From the article,,,,

It is not fully understood how planetary nebulae form such a wide variety of shapes and structures; some appear to be spherical, some elliptical, others shoot material in waves from their polar regions, some look like hourglasses or figures of eight, and others resemble large, messy stellar explosions—to name but a few


There is no way ya can change that into,,,

A pattern that repeats, a common denominator that explains the repetition.


So,,,,

If all of the differing variables were as influential as the common denominator, the PN would ALL be totally different.


That is the point, they ARE different. Some have very strong influences due to electromagnetic fields. BUT only SOME, each one must be individually, on a case by case basis.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
If all of the differing variables were as influential as the common denominator, the PN would ALL be totally different.

That is the point, they ARE different. Some have very strong influences due to electromagnetic fields. BUT only SOME, each one must be individually...



The configurations differ because of the all the variables we have been discussing, but they aren't TOTALLY different. I'm curious as to why you would think that only SOMETIMES the EM fields factor into the structure. Even in the IR image in YYZ's link on page 9 the "X" pattern formed by the A and B axis is evidence of a field but has only a loose correlation to the optical wavelength image. The fact that IR reveals it is a tell tale sign of an EM process.

The quote from the article, although accurate in it's observation doesn't apply since we are talking specifically about PN's that exhibit a common structural charactaristic.
rubberman
not rated yet Mar 07, 2013
Admittedly I have chosen PN that are easy targets, unlike NGC-5189, in a multi lobed, multi axis structure the variables outside of EM play a much more substantial role in the strucural formation. But also (in my opinion) there is a viewable wavelength that will reveal where the primary EM field is/was and how it specifically contributes to the strucure as we see it in all wavelengths.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
The quote from the article, although accurate in it's observation doesn't apply since we are talking specifically about PN's that exhibit a common structural charactaristic.


Then maybe those of that small have a stronger electromagnetic component. What are ya looking for? A cut off point where EM phenomena are the only significant consideration? I don't know where to draw that that line.

No one, especially me, has maintained that the EM phenomena are not present. In some cases EM phenomena may dominate what we observe.

That would be in the focus of a very restricted and highly technical area of research, not a general study. There are probably not more than a dozen people working on that particular exceptional type of object at any given time.

The best ya can get from me is: Yes sometimes electromagnetic phenomena dominate in the particular subgroup ya want to discuss.

In others EM phenomena play a role in a varied degree depending on the object under discussion.
rubberman
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2013

"The best ya can get from me is: Yes sometimes electromagnetic phenomena dominate in the particular subgroup ya want to discuss".

Thanks Q.

I wasn't going for a thorough analysis of the entire process, which couldn't possibly be done without extensive study of ALL of the factors that contribute to these structures as you pointed out. The EM processes at work and the portions of the structure they are responsible for are alot easier to spot in the PN's where they are a primary influence. Thanks for the back and forth.

I just read that I am completely off my rocker now that Natello has uploaded a paper to the preprint server explaining the Fermi bubbles.
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2013
I just read that I am completely off my rocker now that Natello has uploaded a paper to the preprint server explaining the Fermi bubbles.


Yes indeedy, unless ya have firm grasp of the electron duck model, ya will remain off your rocker. By the By: It's Fermi Foam, in the dense aether, not bubbles.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Ya may notice that more than a few people who comment here have a "favorite" force, and make it do everything. why? It's easy, it's WRONG, but it's easy


It's obvious this comment is directed towards posters such as myself, and as usual it's a completely fallacious comment. The only things I have argued for is APPLYING THE PROPER PHYSICS TO THE GIVEN PROPERTIES OF THE CONSTITUENT MATTER and acknowledging that there are no magical magnetic fields created in the Universe (i.e. created w/o electric currents).
Fact; plasma physicists, particle physicists, etc., typically ignore the effects of gravity in their descriptions of their physics, largely because the effect is negligible to the physics they are describing. Also, when properly considering the electrodynamic properties of plasma, it would be completely redundant to consider the thermodynamic properties as well. I agree that there are many variables to the system, but the proper foundation of physics need be considered.
Q-Star
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
The only things I have argued for is APPLYING THE PROPER PHYSICS TO THE GIVEN PROPERTIES OF THE CONSTITUENT MATTER


How can ya apply the proper physics when ya refuse to learn them?

and acknowledging that there are no magical magnetic fields created in the Universe (i.e. created w/o electric currents).


That's why my toy bar magnets shock me while I'm playing with them, right?

Also, when properly considering the electrodynamic properties of plasma, it would be completely redundant to consider the thermodynamic properties as well.


As I said, ya refuse to learn physics, so ya can't feel silly for saying such an absurd thing as that.

I agree that there are many variables to the system, but the proper foundation of physics need be considered.


Ya write that with a straight face?

By the By: How's the search for that astrophysics text going? The one that ignores plasma and EM? I didn't think ya could find one. Considering that ya probably never read one.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
How can ya apply the proper physics when ya refuse to learn them?

As Alfven suggested? You're absolutely correct!

That's why my toy bar magnets shock me while I'm playing with them, right?

If you don't understand that your toys have electric currents flowing through them there is little hope you'll ever understand the physics you purportedly understand so well.

As I said, ya refuse to learn physics, so ya can't feel silly for saying such an absurd thing as that.

So... You're suggesting that electrodynamics doesn't account for the temp of the constituent particles? That's wild! Where exactly did you learn this? I heard you mention Feynman at one point, I guess that explains it.

By the By: How's the search for that astrophysics text going?

Clearly, I have yet to find even one that proves Alfven wrong. How is your search for an astrophysics text that describes plasma double layers or exploding double layers? That's what I thought...
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
If you don't understand that your toys have electric currents flowing through them there is little hope you'll ever understand the physics you purportedly understand so well.


What device would I use to measure that "electric current" flowing through my bar magnet? Do ya know what "electric current" is?

Clearly, I have yet to find even one that proves Alfven wrong.


Then ya haven't looked at one printed in the last fifty years. Because the first one I picked out with my eyes closed proves him wrong, and the second, and the third, and the fourth, and (at random) even the fifth. Every single one of them proves him wrong. There are another dozen or so sitting the shelf, if you would name the one that doesn't prove him wrong, it would sure save some time here.

Ya have never read a text on astrophysics, ya have never completed a text on fundamental physics. Ya said they are all a waste, ya've often said that ya needn't bother with them because ya just KNEW they were wrong
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2013
Do ya know what "electric current" is?

I know "ya" don't have to plug a cord into some holes to get it. BTW, it can be measured in amperes, however small it may be.

"Electric current is the rate of charge flow past a given point in an electric circuit, measured in Coulombs/second which is named Amperes."
It goes on...
'Microscopic view of electric currents'
"Since electric charge is quantized in discrete multiples of the electron charge, it is instructive to look at electric current as the movement of multiple microscopic charge carriers with a drift velocity in a conductor."

You see, those silly little electrons orbiting the nuclei of your toys creates an electric current which THEN CREATES A MAGNETIC FIELD, once again no magic needed.

Do you know what an electric current is? How about those plasma double layers and exploding double layers? That's exactly what I thought!
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
Blah, Blah, Blah,,,,,

Do you know what an electric current is? How about those plasma double layers and exploding double layers? That's exactly what I thought!


Hey that's what I thought too, after Zeph explained it to me.

That's why I get shocked every time I pick the magnet? Thanks. Who would have thunk it. Is it also where the sparks come from when I pick up a nail with the magnet?

(I'm going to connect a lamp to it next, and see if I can make a huge fortune selling a "permanent magnet perpetual motion light" to people like ya.)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2013
That's funny, or not shocking. Thanks again for proving Alfven's assertion.