Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae

Sep 04, 2013
This image shows an example of a bipolar planetary nebula known as PN Hb 12 -- popularly known as Hubble 12 -- in the constellation of Cassiopeia. The striking shape of this nebula, reminiscent of a butterfly or an hourglass, was formed as a Sun-like star approached the end of its life and puffed its outer layers into the surrounding space. For bipolar nebulae, this material is funnelled towards the poles of the ageing star, creating the distinctive double-lobed structure. Credit: NASA, ESA Acknowledgement: Josh Barrington

Astronomers have used the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and ESO's New Technology Telescope to explore more than 100 planetary nebulae in the central bulge of our galaxy. They have found that butterfly-shaped members of this cosmic family tend to be mysteriously aligned—a surprising result given their different histories and varied properties.

The final stages of life for a star like our Sun result in the star puffing its outer layers out into the surrounding space, forming objects known as planetary nebulae in a wide range of beautiful and striking shapes. One type of such nebulae, known as bipolar planetary nebulae, create ghostly hourglass or butterfly shapes around their parent stars.

All these nebulae formed in different places and have different characteristics. Neither the individual nebulae, nor the stars that formed them, interact with other planetary nebulae. However, a new study by astronomers from the University of Manchester, UK, now shows surprising similarities between some of these nebulae: many of them line up in the sky in the same way.

"This really is a surprising find and, if it holds true, a very important one," explains Bryan Rees of the University of Manchester, one of the paper's two authors. "Many of these ghostly appear to have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy. By using images from both Hubble and the NTT we could get a really good view of these objects, so we could study them in great detail."

The astronomers looked at 130 planetary nebulae in the Milky Way's central bulge. They identified three different types, and peered closely at their characteristics and appearance.

"While two of these populations were completely randomly aligned in the sky, as expected, we found that the third—the bipolar nebulae—showed a surprising preference for a particular alignment," says the paper's second author Albert Zijlstra, also of the University of Manchester. "While any alignment at all is a surprise, to have it in the crowded central region of the galaxy is even more unexpected."

Planetary nebulae are thought to be sculpted by the rotation of the star system from which they form. This is dependent on the properties of this system—for example, whether it is a binary, or has a number of planets orbiting it, both of which may greatly influence the form of the blown bubble. The shapes of bipolar nebulae are some of the most extreme, and are thought to be caused by jets blowing mass outwards from the star system perpendicular to its orbit.

"The alignment we're seeing for these bipolar nebulae indicates something bizarre about star systems within the central bulge," explains Rees. "For them to line up in the way we see, the star systems that formed these nebulae would have to be rotating perpendicular to the interstellar clouds from which they formed, which is very strange."

While the properties of their progenitor stars do shape these nebulae, this new finding hints at another more mysterious factor. Along with these complex stellar characteristics are those of our Milky Way; the whole central bulge rotates around the galactic centre. This bulge may have a greater influence than previously thought over our entire galaxy—via its magnetic fields. The astronomers suggest that the orderly behaviour of the planetary nebulae could have been caused by the presence of strong magnetic fields as the bulge formed.

As such nebulae closer to home do not line up in the same orderly way, these fields would have to have been many times stronger than they are in our present-day neighbourhood.

"We can learn a lot from studying these objects," concludes Zijlstra. "If they really behave in this unexpected way, it has consequences for not just the past of individual stars, but for the past of our whole galaxy."

Explore further: Astronomer confirms a new "Super-Earth" planet

More information: Research paper: www.spacetelescope.org/static/… papers/heic1315a.pdf

Related Stories

Hubble observes glowing, fiery shells of gas

Mar 04, 2013

(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 ...

How much do binary stars shape planetary nebulae?

Jun 16, 2011

Planetary nebulae come in a dazzling array of shapes, from spherical shells of gas, to blobby structures barely containing symmetry at all. Controversy has surrounded the cause for this diversity. Could it ...

Image: Hubble's 'smoky' shells

Dec 17, 2012

(Phys.org)—Located in a relatively vacant region of space about 4,200 light-years away and difficult to see using an amateur telescope, the lonesome planetary nebula NGC 7354 is often overlooked. However, ...

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 ...

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

Dec 18, 2014

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (17) Sep 04, 2013
"This really is a surprising find and, if it holds true, a very important one," explains Bryan Rees of the University of Manchester, one of the paper's two authors. "Many of these ghostly butterflies appear to have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy.

This is not at all surprising, the interstellar birkeland currents that create these stars will be flowing into the center of the galaxy along the GP.
Anda
5 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2013
Or maybe a similar event (yet unconfirmed but thought to be a huge collision) at a planetary level (Uranus) can happen to a star causing it to rotate perpendicular to the normal axe, in this case the one of his interstellar cloud. Just thinking...

And... Cantstand85 people who think they know it all instead of learning from new facts.
yyz
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 04, 2013
"...interstellar birkeland currents..."

Would those fictitious currents be related to the radio-loud intergalactic Birkeland currents that we see no trace of in the Coma Cluster: http://en.wikiped...10a1.jpg
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
"...interstellar birkeland currents..."

Would those fictitious currents be related to the radio-loud intergalactic Birkeland currents that we see no trace of in the Coma Cluster: http://en.wikiped...10a1.jpg

Seems those currents have been found;
http://subarutele...dex.html
http://www.thunde...reballs/
You're either ignorant or willfully lying, I presume ignorance but then again...

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor
omatwankr
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2013
Obviously this is caused by a hitherto unknown property of dark-matter, and has nothing to do with neutron revulsion, although aether-hand-waving theory may prove better able to characterize such phenomena.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
Watch. Some religious nut will claim that this is proof of intelligent design. Their ears perk up when they see words like bizarre and unexpected and mysterious and surprising.
yyz
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 04, 2013
@cantdrive,

Your (working) link refers to the discovery of ram-pressure stripped hydrogen gas that was discovered in the vicinity of a *dozen* galaxies in the Coma Cluster, not Birkeland currents:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.3874

http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4867

If you're going to posit that Birkeland currents power entire galaxies, you're going to have to show the existence of such currents between every galaxy, in this case, in the Coma Cluster (there's over a thousand, you know). It's supposed to be a circuit, right?

On another thread you stated that these BCs emitted in the radio region (among other wavelengths) of the EM spectrum. Could you link to a published paper (not your thunderdolts website) that clearly shows evidence for radio-emitting BCs between every galaxy in the Coma Cluster? Half of them? 10% of them?

vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
Sub; Cosmological Index-Alignmement modes in nature
Alignment and Orientation apear to be a clear Index- for dual mode Cosmic Function within the Universe. the science in Philosophy helps with more inputs. Three mode distribution and necessity of Junctions - see Plasma regulated - Cosmic Pot Universe- models in my books
Cosmology Structures new modeling-Carnegie symp 2003 and sTSCI Symp May 2003 also help further clarity.Then comes Invisible-Visible matrix modes Super-imposition.
updates-vidyardhicosmology [dot]blogspot [dot]in/2011/10/light-flow-interaction-plasma-vision [dot]html
Gmr
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2013
Cosmic Pot Universe... at least you named it after its inspiration.
Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (20) Sep 04, 2013
Watch. Some religious nut will claim that this is proof of intelligent design. Their ears perk up when they see words like bizarre and unexpected and mysterious and surprising.


Right, right Otto. Those perfect alignments can't possibly be evidence of a higher order.

Of course they are evidence of a completely random and meaningless event.

Your thinking is incredibly lazy and dishonest.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2013
Those perfect alignments can't possibly be evidence of a higher order.


Perfect? You didn't look at the paper did you? This is evidence of order but is not evidence for your particular take on what that might be.
Benevolent
2 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2013
Paging A2G & Rubberman...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (9) Sep 04, 2013
Right, right Otto. Those perfect alignments can't possibly be evidence of a higher order.
Well hello dear godder. Why does the phrase 'higher order' make me think you are talking about the god of abraham who led 2M hebrews out of the land of goshen, across a cavitated red sea, around the desert for a bit, and into palestine where they proceeded to slaughter every son of ishmael they could get their hands on?

That 'higher order' has been thoroughly disproven as none of that stuff ever happened. Perhaps you should consider some other sort of higher order, as the scientists in the article are doing.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 04, 2013
It's pathetic that people who try so hard to not actually understand an emerging cosmological model would go so far out of their way to refuse to acknowledge an observation which is consistent with this alternative model. You guys wear your bias on your sleeves.

Re: "If you're going to posit that Birkeland currents power entire galaxies, you're going to have to show the existence of such currents between every galaxy, in this case, in the Coma Cluster (there's over a thousand, you know). It's supposed to be a circuit, right?"

I've posted numerous links on this forum explaining how the MHD models are idealistic. What sense is there to insisting that there is dark matter, but refusing to investigate the possibility of a dark mode plasma? They are both "dark" for the same reason ...

As for mapping out the circuit, yes, we have a lot of work to do. But, if your suggestion is that we should make the call before the model is even constructed, then that would seem to not be "science".
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 04, 2013
Re: "On another thread you stated that these BCs emitted in the radio region (among other wavelengths) of the EM spectrum. Could you link to a published paper (not your thunderdolts website) that clearly shows evidence for radio-emitting BCs between every galaxy in the Coma Cluster? Half of them? 10% of them?"

Why not start with the evidence which we already DO have? Gerrit Verschuur has been publishing papers on the interstellar filaments -- which he specifically notes are not at all cloud-like -- for decades now. I've posted on this topic numerous times by now; the filaments exhibit knots which are emitting critical ionization velocities for the most common elements in the universe. A CIV is what you get when a charged particle is slammed into a neutral gas at enormous velocities, in the process ionizing the neutral cloud. The CIV's tend to be very specific redshifts.

Instead of inventing hoops to jump through, doesn't it make sense to just look at what is being claimed?
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
How to be an astrophysicist/cosmologist today:

(1) First, get the degree. Nobody will pay attention to you if you don't have it (right?), so forget whatever it was that might have sparked your interest, and adopt whatever it is they teach you. After all, it's "science".

(2) Once you get the degree, you will come to see that there's not a whole lot of need to pay attention to emerging disruptive paradigms. Your peers will be reviewing you, and the alternative wacky ideas will never get through their reviews. So, why pay attention to any of that?

(3) And after all, there are all sorts of websites out there which (apparently) disprove the wacky ideas. Haven't read them? Doesn't matter. Nobody does. Passing the link is enough to make the point that they are absurd. Who has time for all of that, right?

(4) The great part about "science" is that it is whatever WE say it is. Somebody disagrees with your inferences? They are obviously "anti-science", and you have the degree.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 04, 2013
A layman's review of the history which led to the current cosmic plasma models ...

"The Plasma Universe of Hannes Alfven"
http://www.scient...e_09.pdf

Alfven's 1970 Nobel lecture for MHD, where he distanced himself from the way MHD was being applied by astrophysicists ...

http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf

A reminder that quasi-neutrality does not imply non-conductivity ...

http://www.thunde...tral.htm

Two contemporary papers bring us up to date on the apparent fact that not much has changed since Alfven gave that lecture ...

"Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" (2004) and "Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas" (2007) by George K Parks

Honestly, this should be enough to warrant taking a closer look at any apparent similarities between laboratory plasmas and cosmic observations. These nebulae look very, very similar to laboratory discharges.
no fate
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2013
" but refusing to investigate the possibility of a dark mode plasma? They are both "dark" for the same reason ..."

This is less likely than dark matter. Have you got anything even close to link?

"There doesn't exist any plasma analogy of vortex,"

Does an actual vortex exist somewhere in space?

"These nebulae look very, very similar to laboratory discharges."

One link....just one.

As to the observation above. It is clearly a magnetic alignment. Why fight it? Let's figure out why we see it instead.

Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 05, 2013
A layman's review of the history which led to the current cosmic plasma models ...


That layman should understand that there are no plasma models. That layman should also learn what a model is in science before he goes about reviewing them.

Two contemporary papers bring us up to date on the apparent fact that not much has changed since Alfven gave that lecture ...


Yeppers, nothing has changed in 60 years, the Alfven EU/PC has been static as the real science has moved on.

Honestly, this should be enough to warrant taking a closer look at any apparent similarities between laboratory plasmas and cosmic observations.


Keywords: Apparent similarities. Very deep and insightful scientific method that.

These nebulae look very, very similar to laboratory discharges.


Horses look like unicorns, are the zoologists missing something? Alfven says: "Take a spherical unicorn in a vacuum,,,,,,, "
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2013
Horses look like unicorns, are the zoologists missing something? Alfven says: "Take a spherical unicorn in a vacuum,,,,,,, "

It seems the people who follow the "doctrine of signatures" approach don't die out.
http://en.wikiped...gnatures
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "As to the observation above. It is clearly a magnetic alignment. Why fight it? Let's figure out why we see it instead."

The problem here is not the agreement we both share that a magnetic field will probably be invoked. The problem is that fundamental laboratory observations will once again likely be set aside to make way for more speculative inferences about why the magnetic field is there, to begin with. This is where the public tends to get unknowingly strung along with some metaphysical or new physics inference, even as the simplest possibility -- that magnetic fields go hand-in-hand with electric currents -- is ignored since it undermines the existing worldview.

This is why we all need to take a new, more critical look at the way in which astrophysics & cosmology are done today. There is no authentic attempt to follow the data where it leads. The existing worldview is being imposed upon the data ... and the grad students. Those who don't play along are simply dropped.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "That layman should understand that there are no plasma models. That layman should also learn what a model is in science before he goes about reviewing them."

The history associated with Alfven and MHD should be motivating a larger investigation into this direction. The problem is that the grad students are being trained to apply the MHD equations rather than question the equations they are applying. From "Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" ...

"Although it is well-known that MHD theory is applicable only to a restricted class of plasma problems of which collisionless plasmas are not a part (Krall and Trivelpiece, 1973), MHD and ideal MHD theories have been used in space without due regard to these restrictions."

... and ...

"the frozen-in-field concept requires the strict criterion E · B = 0 which is not always satisfied in space"

Which is the worse situation: Elaborating a model which is incomplete, or one which is known to be wrong?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "Yeppers, nothing has changed in 60 years, the Alfven EU/PC has been static as the real science has moved on."

If a 4% baryonic universe is considered to be "real science", then this really lowers the bar, and you guys should not waste all of our time expressing any surprise at all at the hoards of quacks coming at you every day suggesting solutions.

From the Edge article ...

"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—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."

4% == crisis.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
Which is the worse situation: Elaborating a model which is incomplete, or one which is known to be wrong?


That's a very good question. And an easy one to answer. It depends on WHO is the person that KNOWS it to be WRONG. Some KNOWN things are just not very compelling to me. I don't have much confidence in the arguments ya make for the things ya KNOW are correct, and less for your musings on the things ya KNOW are wrong.

So if ya be so kind as to always point out to me what ya KNOW is wrong, I can have a greater degree of confidence that perhaps the model I'm using is on the right track.

By the By: Just curious, do ya dream of the late Hannes Alfven at night when ya sleep? Do ya pretend in front of the mirror that ya are him and how great it would be if ya could BE him? Just curious as ya seem to be pathologically obsessed with this mythical man. Maybe in 2000 years your progeny will date the years using BHA and AHA,,,, just wondering.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 05, 2013


Horses look like unicorns, are the zoologists missing something? Alfven says: "Take a spherical unicorn in a vacuum,,,,,,, "

It seems the people who follow the "doctrine of signatures" approach don't die out.
http://en.wikiped...gnatures

Yep, and they are looking for the god bosom...
http://articles.l...20120705
if it looks like a duck.... it's only a duck if it agrees with your own beliefs.
The experimental and phenomenological approach Alfven supported is scoffed at by the theoreticians, but they are only emulating their deity in favor of "thought experiments".

"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies

Rubes!

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "It depends on WHO is the person that KNOWS it to be WRONG."

Here we go again, pretending as though 1,000+ researchers (+ Noam Chomsky) never stood with Jeff Schmidt for his right to call the physics training program a mental bootcamp which favors the unquestioning gung-ho types over those who stop and question that which they are memorizing.

You pretend as though we all have a simple choice to make between the knowledgeable experts and the confused laypeople -- even though a 19-year veteran reporter for Physics Today (one of their best) stood up and detailed the underlying (manipulative, not technical) reasons for why we see so much consensus in physics today on such speculative models.

When ideology becomes a part of the training, and those who "get political" are simply weeded out, authoritative consensus loses its importance as a guide for critical thinking.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
"Professionals generally avoid the risk inherent in real critical thinking and cannot properly be called critical thinkers. They are simply ideologically disciplined thinkers. Real critical thinking means uncovering and questioning social, political and moral assumptions; applying and refining a personally developed worldview; and calling for action that advances a personally created agenda. An approach that backs away from any of these three components lacks the critical spirit ... Ideologically disciplined thinkers, especially the more gung-ho ones, often give the appearance of being critical thinkers as they go around deftly applying the official ideology and confidently reporting their judgments. The fact that professionals are usually more well-informed than nonprofessionals contributes to the illusion that they are critical thinkers."

(p41, Disciplined Minds, Jeff Schmidt)
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2013
Here we go again, pretending as though 1,000+ researchers (+ Noam Chomsky) never stood with Jeff Schmidt for his right to call the physics training program a mental bootcamp


Physics training programs are mental boot camps. By the By: 700 + / - researchers (+ A Philosopher)

which favors the unquestioning gung-ho types over those who stop and question that which they are memorizing.


Like the military boot camps, while training the recruits, ya can't allow the neophytes the freedom to be generals, because they don't have the background to lead armies.

You pretend as though we all have a simple choice to make between the knowledgeable experts and the confused laypeople --


I don't pretend it, I contend it.

even though a 19-year veteran reporter for Physics Today (one of their best) stood up and detailed the underlying (manipulative, not technical) reasons .


He went from being a reporter to being an op-ed writer while pretending he was a reporter.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
While I do respect Mr. Hannes Alfven as an astrophysicist and solar plasma physicist, his extrapolations of electromagnetic models into behavior of galaxies at the cosmic scales (which is apparently driven with another forces and fields like the dark matter) seems suboptimal and counterproductive for me. They do appear similarly, they even quack similarly - but they're not the same ducks. But prof. Alfven has died before the dark matter got wider recognition. If I would spread the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge in the state as it appeared in the time of his death, I would end with it very soon here.

Oliver Lodge died 70+ years ago, Alfven less than 20. Alfven was fortunate to have viewed Peratt's supercomputer P-I-C simulations of galaxy formation/evolution based upon interacting plasmas. Seems counter productive to cling to DM when it is not needed to explain galactic rotation or any other phenomena for that matter.
Q-Star
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2013
"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies


But he was discussing the differences between experimentalists and theorists,and what leads a person to choose one or the other direction in career choices. (Some of us have actually read the works & writings of these people).

But I can see why ya, of all people, would use Davies as an authority,, he also teaches that EU/PC is total and complete bunk and crackpottery. He also was wise enough to remove Stephen Crothers from his graduate program because had/(still has) a severe personality disorder.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2013
If I would spread the dense aether model of Oliver Lodge in the state as it appeared in the time of his death, I would end with it very soon here.


I seriously doubt ya'll be ending anything very soon here. But be that as it may be,,,, Why are ya neglecting to spread Lodges great works on ghosts, spirits and clairvoyance? Don't ya think they need some spreading about also? His aether theory was posited to give those things a mechanism with which to operate.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "He also was wise enough to remove Stephen Crothers from his graduate program because had/(still has) a severe personality disorder."

It seems that our definition for illness demands expansion, in order to accommodate those who question the applicability of claims which are easy to demonstrate are non-falsifiable. Crothers is clearly sick because he points out that a black hole universe is ...

Spatially infinite
Eternal
Contains only one mass
Not expanding
Asymptotically flat

Whereas a big bang universe is ...

Spatially finite or infinite
Of finite age
Contains radiation and many masses
Expanding
Not asymptotically flat

It is plainly a symptom of a lunatic to ask the question: Are the two compatible?
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "Like the military boot camps, while training the recruits, ya can't allow the neophytes the freedom to be generals, because they don't have the background to lead armies."

The real problem here is that when the public is told that some % of scientists agree on a particular point, it's never actually explained to them that those who questioned this ideology were actually removed from the programs.

"A faculty member who talks informally with a student in the hallway or at the weekly after-colloquium reception inevitably comes away with a feeling about whether or not that student 'thinks like a physicist.' The student's political outlook can easily make a difference in the faculty member's assessment. For example, in the usual informal discussion of an issue in the news, the student who rails against technical incompetence and confines his thoughts to the search for technical solutions within the given political framework as part of the solution.

[...]
no fate
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2013
"The problem is that fundamental laboratory observations will once again likely be set aside to make way for more speculative inferences about why the magnetic field is there, to begin with."

I have been through this with Cantdrive, so i will ask you the same since you are insinuating the same thing, which is that plasma generates magnetic fields without the necessity of any being applied. One link to one experiment where any plasma self aligned or produced an EM field by itself. The entire EU theory requires this to not only be possible, but the norm.

HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2013
[...]

"Indeed, the latter approach falls outside the work assignments given to professional physicists in industry and academe and so represents thinking unlike a physicist's."

(p134, Disciplined Minds, Jeff Schmidt)

If the public realized that this is actually a top-down organization, it would alter the very meaning of this consensus, as well as what it means to be an "expert" or "professional". And they would predictably open their minds up to those alternatives which are actively being cleansed from the university system.

Advocates for mainstream ideas on physorg like to have it both ways: They like to pretend that each of those scientists came to the consensus view through their own personal reasoning, while completely avoiding the inconvenient details of the purges which are used to create that very agreement.

The sad part for those of us who have paid attention is that there is no longer any place for critical thought in these programs; thus they cannot possibly succeed.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "One link to one experiment where any plasma self aligned or produced an EM field by itself. The entire EU theory requires this to not only be possible, but the norm."

1. A voltage drop (difference) across a conducting path (in plasma) produces a current (by virtue of Ohm's Law).

2. Electric currents are streams of moving charge.

3. Currents produce magnetic fields.

4. Relative motion between plasma (moving ionized gas) and magnetic fields produces electrical currents. Go back to step 2.

5. Relative motion between moving charges (a plasma cell) and neutral gas clouds produces charge separation, which in turn leads to voltage. Go back to step 1.
Q-Star
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2013
It is plainly a symptom of a lunatic to ask the question: Are the two compatible?


False premise. "Asking the question" is compatible with many questions. But it's not the question that was "symptom of being a lunatic", but what came after the question was asked. But ya know all this so for the benefit of anyone who doesn't know the story,,

Crothers as an undergraduate, had developed well earned reputation for being disruptive & distracting in most of the lecture courses he was enrolled in. The physics department had hoped that might subside somewhat after & as he begin his graduate program.

That was not to be. Crothers wanted to change his graduate program track on 8 different occasions. He became so unhinged at "battling" the "powers" that he often interrupted classes being taught to undergrads, interrupt lectures, stalk various professors to engage in debate and argument, & disrupt the entire physics dept.

Even after dismissal, a protective order was required.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
It sounds to me like he didn't agree with what he was being taught. It's very likely that if all of the students going into these programs were told going in that ideology was part of the program, and that they would have to memorize that ideology for many years even if they did not agree with it, then probably a good % would never go into the program to begin with.

Have you ever considered the possibility of a program which simply teaches students how to question these models, in addition to learning them? What about a program which teaches students how to switch between competing models, without confusing their claims?

One wonders how effective students can really be at solving longstanding problems if they are not being taught, in great detail, all of the reasons to NOT believe the models, alongside the reasons they might believe them. Whether you believe in the EU or not, surely you can see how this might potentially cause the discipline to eventually stall on a bad idea ...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (13) Sep 05, 2013
False premise. "Asking the question" is compatible with many questions.

How ironic, every argument you engage in is based upon a false premise suggested by you. Pots and black kettles and such...
Q-Star
4 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2013
False premise. "Asking the question" is compatible with many questions.

How ironic, every argument you engage in is based upon a false premise suggested by you. Pots and black kettles and such...


Thank ya for the endorsement, but it wasn't necessary, I was pretty sure I was on the right road,,,, but it is comforting to have addition confirmation.
HannesAlfven
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 05, 2013
It's perhaps worth noting that even if Crothers has been dismissed -- like numerous other critics -- he has at least succeeded in making his point heard within an atmosphere which is not at all conducive to critical thought.

It's a sad state of affairs when there exists no room within the physics training programs for students to disagree with the ideology that preceded them. I can't see how the next game-changing Einstein can emerge from such a program; all steps from here on out are necessarily baby steps -- even if it is a total change of course which is needed.

It's not hard to relate to the moment of realization that all of the $$$ and effort invested to date has been not for the purpose of carefully thinking about what others before you have claimed, but rather to fall in line as a "professional" -- a brick in the wall against any new, promising idea which might emerge. When people freak out in such situations, is it really because they are unstable people?
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
It's a sad state of affairs when there exists no room within the physics training programs for students to disagree with the ideology that preceded them.


It would be a sad state of affairs if every self proclaimed "genius" could interrupt every class, lecture and lab to demand the attention of his fellow students and prevent the professors from spreading their "biased untruths".

When people freak out in such situations, is it really because they are unstable people?


Yes, and ya know exactly how this particular unstable person was described by professionals in the field of psychiatry. "Border-line Personality Disorder" with "Grandiose Ideations."

For a person so concerned with getting the truth out, and railing against the suppression of knowledge ya sure are leaving out the most germane facts about Crothers.

no fate
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2013
Hannes, that is not a link nor is it a "fundamental labratory observation". Your 5 points are common knowledge so let's focus on point #2. Make it happen in a plasma chamber without a field.

Both of you EU guys quote all of the great minds you like, slam education and cite a lack of critical thinking all you want, blame whomever you need to blame, but at the end of the day the one thing you need to happen for your theory to work never - ever will.
Q-Star
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 05, 2013
It's perhaps worth noting that even if Crothers has been dismissed -- like numerous other critics -- he has at least succeeded in making his point heard within an atmosphere which is not at all conducive to critical thought


So let us note it. He has been succeeded in a niche in which there are suckers who pay for the privilege of being allowed to enter the secret realms of real knowledge that the academic fools are working so hard to suppress, hide, deny, cover up. Only the Crothers of the world know enough to understand.

Grand ideas have a way of getting out, success is measured by how many people take the ideas up, what they do with them, and most importantly, the nature of the people who take up the ideas. Ya have not made a compelling case that ya the sort of person who takes up grand ideas.

When ya going to answer the question I asked about ya and Hannes Alfven? Should I ask again?
Q-Star
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 05, 2013
My primary problem is, why we are talking here about Plasma Universe at all. Is this model somehow relevant to subject?


To be fair to the EU/PC acolytes, it's about as relevant to anything as the AWT is to anything else.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "My primary problem is, why we are talking here about Plasma Universe at all. Is this model somehow relevant to subject?"

It's telling that you have to ask the question. I know it's not currently in fashion to link electric currents and magnetic fields in astrophysics, but surely you got at least a slight sense of a connection in that we are likely about to see an inference involving a large-scale magnetic field to explain these observations, and the theory is called "Electric Universe" ...
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2013
Re: "Your 5 points are common knowledge ..."

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Re: "... so let's focus on point #2. Make it happen in a plasma chamber without a field."

And the point of this would be what? ... to demonstrate that the universe cannot be simulated within a laboratory? As you likely know, nobody has generated a magnetic reconnection event without first applying current to the plasma sheets they are observing. It doesn't appear that anybody actually cares.

Re: "but at the end of the day the one thing you need to happen for your theory to work never - ever will."

I would agree with you if your point is that our current institutions are incapable of basically starting over with a fresh hypothesis. But this is not a problem which follows from just the EU. The educational system, as it has been constructed, is not designed to accommodate any DRAMATIC changes in course -- for better or worse. Chances are that we will all here die knowing a 4% universe.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
Re: "Grand ideas have a way of getting out ..."

I see a lot of people these days imagining that students will, through some accident & against the grain of the system used to educate them, learn to be critical & creative thinkers.

Re: "... success is measured by how many people take the ideas up, what they do with them, and most importantly, the nature of the people who take up the ideas. Ya have not made a compelling case that ya the sort of person who takes up grand ideas."

Actually, the notion that we might be able to explain mythology using plasma physics is a pretty large idea, as it speaks directly to the origins of human intellect. So is the idea that where we see cosmic magnetic fields, they might indicate cosmic electric currents. Given that 99% of what we see w our telescopes is matter in the plasma state, the suggestion that the cosmic plasma models are wrong is a very big assertion with enormous ramifications; all of cosmology hinges on that single argument.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
There are important clues in the EU hypothesis which point to a very specific location for the origin of life in the universe (Wal Thornhill has written about this). When combined with the work on water by Gerald Pollack, the picture becomes yet clearer how life can emerge from a hydrogel environment.

An electric universe differs from a magnetic universe in that transient surges can be expected. 84 classes of petroglyphs have already been correlated to high-energy plasma discharges. Given our reliance upon electronics today, it's an incredibly important topic.

In an electrically connected universe, there are also important implications for global warming. Within this context, the notion of electric joule heating becomes an important line of investigation which demands further attention.

There's much at stake here, and it's kind of surreal that people who fashion themselves as fans of science go so far out of their way to argue we should not be using science here.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
The notion that our university system is manufacturing the consensus which the public assumes to have authentically emerged is an incredibly important assertion which demands further investigation. And Jeff Schmidt's claims on this point are also supported by independent statements by Peter Woit and Fred Hoyle. Regardless of your theoretical beliefs, this speaks directly to our ability to pursue new, promising lines of investigation in science which might clash with existing theory.

The notion of an electric sun suggests a specific reason for why fusion research has failed to produce results. Billions of dollars are on the line.

Our ideas about lightning and earthquakes are in flux, due to completely unexpected observations which suggest electrical connections.

Cosmology provides a worldview which scientists in numerous other disciplines use to make inferences. If there are mistakes in cosmology, they can trickle into many of the other domains. The consequences are enormous.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
The observation of planetary rilles which appear to defy gravity by following the terrain both down AND UP, within the electrical view, are not necessarily the result of some gradual uplift over millions of years. We see such enigmatic rilles not only on the Moon and Venus, but even here on Earth, where the Grand Canyon's Colorado River punches straight through the Kaibab Upwarp. The notion of planetary scaring by electric discharge represents an existential threat. The public does not just look to scientists for what to believe; we also look to scientists as our guardians.

We also expect scientists to look beyond the training they are offered in university programs. The point was never to train scientists to defend the existing theory, and yet, the "professionalization" of the sciences raises very serious questions which demand a far wider public audience. The clash between the ideals of the professional and scientist is a very tricky problem that will not solve itself.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 06, 2013
I also pay close attention to machine learning, big data and topic modeling. It seems that we are entering an important time for science education reform. What I would strongly suggest to those who remain skeptical of competing theories like the EU is that they nevertheless recognize the importance of adopting a constructivist approach to science education. If this science education reform effort is left to the existing establishment, the promise of big data will predictably fail to materialize into new, more effective theories in science by failing to support students' abilities to decide for themselves.

At the end of the day, the ? of whether or not the EU is valid is less important than the need to provide students of tomorrow with a platform for exploring ideas such as the EU. We are simply not training students to unify physics; that can ONLY be accomplished through teaching critical and creative thought, and removing the ideological component to "thinking like a scientist".
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (13) Sep 06, 2013
Topic modeling will prove to be an incredibly important tool for supporting critical thought in science education. These Bayesian tools which were used to win WWII and drive cars can also be used to support the conversion of laypeople into effective, self-studying, multi-paradigm scientific thinkers. But, this will not accidentally happen. If your worldview is that there is only one paradigm in science worth pursuing, then you will lack the motivation to build systems which can transition society to better theories in science. People who disagree over the EU can nevertheless still agree on the need to support students' need for a more sophisticated system for inter-paradigm dialogue, in order to better prepare them for unifying physics.

The failure of chat boards like this one to support complex scientific dialogues artificially props up the existing theories. With a more sophisticated system, we can have more complex dialogues and better solve the most complex problems.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2013
Electric stars, as above, is an Electric Universe theory. Plasma Cosmology (Alfven) and Plasma Universe (Peratt) are separate POV's. BTW, he did a few posts ago.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2013
What sense is there to insisting that there is dark matter, but refusing to investigate the possibility of a dark mode plasma? They are both "dark" for the same reason ...


You are wrong again. Dark matter is dark because it doesn't interact with EM at all. Plasma is a mixture of charged particles which do interact with EM. The consequence is that non-emitting plasma would still be detectable in silhouette while DM is transparent. What we would see might be similar to this molecular cloud:

http://en.wikiped...rnard_68
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Sep 07, 2013
The solar wind of our solar system, the interplanetary medium, and interstellar/galactic medium is dark mode plasma, it's fairly "transparent". It's rather a moot point anyway, the fictional DM is dark because the people who believe such nonsense are extremely dim.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 07, 2013
They are both "dark" for the same reason ...

The solar wind of our solar system, the interplanetary medium, and interstellar/galactic medium is dark mode plasma, it's fairly "transparent".


As is the intergalactic medium, it's all dependent on density, but DM would be detectable if it were dark plasma, the reason why they are both invisible is fundamentally different. There is also evidence from collisions like the Bullet Cluster that DM is not fermionic

It's rather a moot point anyway, the fictional DM is dark because the people who believe such nonsense are extremely dim.


Resorting to ad hominem attacks only shows you already know you have no valid scientific response.
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2013
Perhaps you should consider some other sort of higher order, as the scientists in the article are doing.


But you don't consider anything. To you, meaning and order are ultimately non-existent, since you claim to believe everything is just a freak accident with no ultimate cause, except that you somehow believe everything came from nothing at all.

You can argue against dates or doctrines all you want, but at the end of the day, you'll have to admit the claim of everything coming from nothing is insane, and if you don't admit it, then some day you'll just die a fool.

Either way, your error is much larger than any I've made.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Sep 08, 2013
But you don't consider anything. To you, meaning and order are ultimately non-existent,


"Meaning" is the purpose that the initiator had in mind that led to an action and that implies thought which takes time. There can be no purpose in inanimate nature. To ascribe meaning to the creation of space and time produces a chicken-and-egg paradox.

except that you somehow believe everything came from nothing at all. ... the claim of everything coming from nothing is insane ..


The total energy of the universe is zero when gravitational potential energy is included so you are really saying is "the claim of everything nothing from nothing is insane". There is no inherent paradox there however remarkable the event.

In fact it is the religious creationist belief that requires "everything from nothing", and managed and planned by a being who thought about for some time before deciding to create time. There's your paradox.
xEnomania
1 / 5 (3) Sep 08, 2013
As a total stranger to stellar dynamics, I'd still like to share a thought.
Given the fact that we are apparently unable to fully understand the parameters for the orientation of stellar jets, especially in case of progenitor stars, how could we even take for granted all these simulations for ie. Betelgeuse (regardless of being categorized as a star in totally different branch of HR diagram and localized further from the galactic center)? As we now unveil novel contributing factors for the formation of planetary nebulaes, we are yet in the infancy of predicting sth as supernova, not to mention the direction of gamma ray bursts. The poles no longer play the role for such thing- this could impact on our safety from these events.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
Re: "The consequence is that non-emitting plasma would still be detectable in silhouette"

Yes, if there exists sufficient dust which would create the sillhouette -- which would make it a dusty plasma, right? The charged particles, however, are what confer its plasma state, and to my knowledge, nobody is claiming that dark plasma would be easy to see (despite the weakly relevant wikipedia article you linked to).

In the EU, there are specific reasons for why neutral matter can oftentimes be observed to be associated with charged particles in cosmic plasmas. It's a little-discussed, but cosmologically important, process called Marklund Convection. This is why, even when we are talking about neutral filaments observed at 21-cm, there is good reason to nevertheless believe that it is a plasma which is causing the filamentation (and knots which are oftentimes observed within these filaments).

It's very difficult to "debate" paradigms w/ awareness of only 1 of the 2 paradigms.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
Re: "My primary problem is, why we are talking here about Plasma Universe at all. Is this model somehow relevant to subject? Why you're not answering this question?"

I can't learn the theory for you, unfortunately. But, if you check out the links which have already been posted in this thread on Alfven, quasi-neutrality and MHD (the cosmic plasma models), the answer is right there. It requires some minimal understanding of E&M, but not a whole lot. If you know what an electric current, a magnetic field and an E-field are, you know enough to get a feel for what is going on.

What I would advise people though, is to be aware that wikipedia should never be used as a resource for controversial subjects. There are censors scouring wikipedia as we speak, eliminating all historical source materials associated with Velikovsky/EU/etc.

Instead, go here:

http://www.plasma...rse.com/

In particular, note that 99% of what we see w/ telescopes is matter in the plasma state.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
Re: "The total energy of the universe is zero when gravitational potential energy is included"

So, the creation of matter (a physical entity) from nothingness (the lack of a physical entity) is justified because the total energy (a mathematical concept) can be shown to be zero? ...

Metaphysics does not stop being metaphysics just because equations can be drawn up to show how it might be. Some observations are simply beyond physics' ability to explain. One of the most important aspects of using the tool of physics is in knowing what its limitations are. Those who claim that physics has no limitations are practicing what is commonly referred to as scientism.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
Re: "DM would be detectable if it were dark plasma, the reason why they are both invisible is fundamentally different."

You seem to have missed the simple point I was making. It was not an argument about physics. Both dark matter and dark plasma are called "dark" because they are difficult to observe.

The larger point -- which speaks to one's approach in physics -- is why we would go so far out of our way to focus entirely upon the "new physics" explanation (theoretical entities never observed in the laboratory) without first investigating the known mistakes in the cosmic plasma models -- which, by consequence, point to the possibility of dark mode plasma, a non-theoretical concept which we definitively observe within the laboratory, and which in truth surrounds us in our day-to-day existences ... ?

More simply, why chase after the theoretical entities when we still have the laboratory variety to check for? It really calls into question what sort of "science" this all is ...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Sep 08, 2013
The truth is that this question has a known answer: What is very plainly happening is that astrophysicists and cosmologists are constraining the set of possible inferences to those which match their pre-existing worldview regarding what they imagine *should* be there. Since most astrophysics/cosmology students are simply never taught about the history and longstanding debate over these models, there's simply no expectation that this is a fruitful line of investigation.

But, needless to say, the public's expectation is that scientists will follow a potential solution to a problem, even when it does not originate within their training. The training is not the point of the training, in other words. Astrophysicists who insist upon imagining that they have been trained in order to defend the ideology they were taught in school don't have a firm grasp of what it means to be educated, nor of what it means to be a scientist. The public expects that they will readily abandon this training.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Re: "The consequence is that non-emitting plasma would still be detectable in silhouette"

Yes, if there exists sufficient dust which would create the sillhouette -- which would make it a dusty plasma, right?


No, I'm talking about the charged particles themselves.

The charged particles, however, are what confer its plasma state, and to my knowledge, nobody is claiming that dark plasma would be easy to see (despite the weakly relevant wikipedia article you linked to).


You seem to have misunderstood ny comment, I was not claiming you should be able to see dark plasma. What I said was that the reason why dark matter is not visible is not the same as for dark plasma as you stated. In the latter case, it is because the density is too low even though at higher density it would be visible as dark nebulae. In the former case it is because DM does not interact with EM at all regardless of density.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Re: "The total energy of the universe is zero when gravitational potential energy is included"

So, the creation of matter (a physical entity) from nothingness (the lack of a physical entity) is justified because the total energy (a mathematical concept) can be shown to be zero?


Remember "E=mc^2" ?

All matter is just a form of energy, nothing more. "Total energy" is as physical as a brick, it is just the sum of all forms of energy (including bricks). The understanding that matter can be created from other forms of energy is justified because we observe it in the form of pair production in accelerators every time they operate.

Your attempt to classify some things as "a physical entity" and others as not in order to fake a dichotomy is the only metaphysics in this conversation.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2013
Re: "DM would be detectable if it were dark plasma, the reason why they are both invisible is fundamentally different."


You seem to have missed the simple point I was making. It was not an argument about physics. Both dark matter and dark plasma are called "dark" because they are difficult to observe.


You seem to have missed my point. "Dark plasma" or rather the dark spaces in a plasma tube are called dark because the material in those regions emits at a very low level but can still absorb light. Dark matter on the other hand is called "dark" because (a) it doesn't not interact with photons at all and (b) we are completely "in the dark" about the material's actual form.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.