River of hydrogen flowing through space seen with Green Bank Telescope

Jan 27, 2014
This composite image contains three distinct features: the bright star-filled central region of galaxy NGC 6946 in optical light (blue), the dense hydrogen tracing out the galaxy's sweeping spiral arms and galactic halo (orange), and the extremely diffuse and extended field of hydrogen engulfing NGC 6946 and its companions (red). The new GBT data show the faintly glowing hydrogen bridging the gulf between the larger galaxy and its smaller companions. This faint structure is precisely what astronomers expect to appear as hydrogen flows from the intergalactic medium into galaxies or from a past encounter between galaxies. Credit: D.J. Pisano (WVU); B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF); Palomar Observatory -- Space Telescope Science Institute 2nd Digital Sky Survey (Caltech); Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope

(Phys.org) —Using the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT), astronomer D.J. Pisano from West Virginia University has discovered what could be a never-before-seen river of hydrogen flowing through space. This very faint, very tenuous filament of gas is streaming into the nearby galaxy NGC 6946 and may help explain how certain spiral galaxies keep up their steady pace of star formation.

"We knew that the fuel for had to come from somewhere. So far, however, we've detected only about 10 percent of what would be necessary to explain what we observe in many ," said Pisano. "A leading theory is that rivers of hydrogen – known as cold flows – may be ferrying hydrogen through intergalactic space, clandestinely fueling star formation. But this tenuous hydrogen has been simply too diffuse to detect, until now."

Spiral galaxies, like our own Milky Way, typically maintain a rather tranquil but steady pace of star formation. Others, like NGC 6946, which is located approximately 22 million light-years from Earth on the border of the constellations Cepheus and Cygnus, are much more active, though less-so than more extreme starburst galaxies. This raises the question of what is fueling the sustained star formation in this and similar spiral galaxies.

Earlier studies of the galactic neighborhood around NGC 6946 with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope (WSRT) in the Netherlands have revealed an extended halo of hydrogen (a feature commonly seen in spiral galaxies, which may be formed by hydrogen ejected from the disk of the galaxy by intense star formation and supernova explosions). A cold flow, however, would be hydrogen from a completely different source: gas from intergalactic space that has never been heated to extreme temperatures by a galaxy's star birth or supernova processes.

Using the GBT, Pisano was able to detect the glow emitted by connecting NGC 6946 with its cosmic neighbors. This signal was simply below the detection threshold of other telescopes. The GBT's unique capabilities, including its immense single dish, unblocked aperture, and location in the National Radio Quiet Zone, enabled it to detect this tenuous radio light.

Astronomers have long theorized that larger galaxies could receive a constant influx of cold hydrogen by syphoning it off other less-massive companions.

In looking at NGC 6946, the GBT detected just the sort of filamentary structure that would be present in a cold flow, though there is another probable explanation for what has been observed. It's also possible that sometime in the past this galaxy had a close encounter and passed by its neighbors, leaving a ribbon of neutral atomic in its wake.

If that were the case, however, there should be a small but observable population of stars in the filaments. Further studies will help to confirm the nature of this observation and could shine light on the possible role that cold flows play in the evolution of galaxies.

These results are published in the Astronomical Journal.

Explore further: Hidden details revealed in nearby starburst galaxy

Related Stories

Hidden details revealed in nearby starburst galaxy

Dec 09, 2013

Using the new, high-frequency capabilities of the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT), astronomers have captured never-before-seen details of the nearby starburst galaxy ...

Galactic clusters low on hydrogen

Nov 25, 2013

Astronomers at Swinburne University of Technology and their international collaborators have found evidence that galaxies that are located in groups might be running out of gas.

Neighbor galaxies may have brushed closely: research

Jun 11, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Two of our Milky Way's neighbor galaxies may have had a close encounter billions of years ago, recent studies with the National Science Foundation's Green Bank Telescope (GBT) indicate. The new ...

Recommended for you

Exoplanet measured with remarkable precision

18 hours ago

Barely 30 years ago, the only planets astronomers had found were located right here in our own solar system. The Milky Way is chock-full of stars, millions of them similar to our own sun. Yet the tally ...

New star catalog reveals unexpected 'solar salad'

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —An Arizona State University alumnus has devised the largest catalog ever produced for stellar compositions. Called the Hypatia Catalog, after one of the first female astronomers who lived in ...

New survey begins mapping nearby galaxies

Aug 18, 2014

A new survey called MaNGA (Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory) has been launched that will greatly expand our understanding of galaxies, including the Milky Way, by charting the internal ...

User comments : 44

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (14) Jan 27, 2014
"A leading theory is that rivers of hydrogen – known as cold flows – may be ferrying hydrogen through intergalactic space, clandestinely fueling star formation. "

Yep, the theory is called Electric Universe and the "river" of hydrogen is the electric currents powering the galaxy.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2014
@cd
the theory is called Electric Universe and the "river" of hydrogen is the electric currents powering the galaxy

please provide legitimate references/sources to support your claim
that are not links back to crackpot sites

just because your crackpot EU mentions something doesnt mean it is the ONLY theory that does
cold flows are also vestiges of the BB
you can read about some of that in these links:
"The galaxy is vigorously forming stars, and the gas properties clearly show that this is pristine material, left over from the early universe shortly after the big bang."


http://scitechdai...ydrogen/

http://newswise.c...elescope

Andrew Palfreyman
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 27, 2014
What is it about cool science discoveries that brings the whackjobs out? After the EU freaks, we'll get the GodSquad telling us it's a stream of god's piss.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 27, 2014
Simple charge differential...
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2014
It's going to be really upsetting for advocates of conventional theory when they actually take a thoughtful look at the linewidths of the 21-cm HI signal. This issue has not been covered especially well within the Astrophysical Journal. As Don Scott and Wal Thornhill have repeatedly warned, only readers of IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science will understand the laboratory plasma process of Marklund convection required to actually interpret Verschuur's observations.

And so, when readers of the Astrophysical Journal hear Verschuur talking about filaments of neutral HI hydrogen, there is a complete disconnect which has been created by this decision amongst astrophysicists to treat IEEE as an inferior journal.

The unfortunate fact is that when you decide to cultivate an ignorance of something, you don't actually get to know what it is you do not know. And so, what this necessarily leads to is incredulous surprise when the data & theory are presented in just the right way.
HannesAlfven
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
So, we have a situation right now where Verschuur's claims have not yet been properly explained to either the astrophysicists nor the public. It's a complex subject which takes some effort to convey, but once it is explained properly, the data is as clear as can be. And listen very carefully:

Critical ionization velocities are showing up VERY CLEARLY in the all-sky surveys. We see all four of the CIV's which one would expect to see for the universe's most common elements, but they only show up when the data is handled with care. Groups like the WMAP team who process these datasets using automated scripts cannot expect to do accurate Gaussian fitting when you have numerous emissions in the line of sight. The curves have to be fitted by hand, and it can take thousands of hours of careful work to get the 21-cm shifts into linewidth histograms that can be trusted.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2014
Simple charge differential...

Got '1'ed for that...
Oh, right. I forgot. There IS no fight club...
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2014
Verschuur did much of this work before he even learned what a CIV was. And if you read his books, you will notice that he makes no claim about CIV's in his books. I've checked, and there's nothing there except for references to -- and a lot of curiosity about -- the anomalous high-velocity clouds.

The people who like to ridicule the Electric Universe would be wise to take a look at the typical linewidth histograms. Although the CIV's vary based upon where one looks in the sky, for most regions of the sky, there exist one or more identifiable CIV's. In many regions, we can see all 4 CIV bands at play.

Now, the astrophysicists have already pulled the statistics card on Verschuur's WMAP claim. But, they just skipped over these far more devastating CIV signals. And once they see somebody explain this properly, they are going to sh*t their pants.

It is possible to explain the CIV observation sufficient to make it go viral. It can literally spread to millions of people overnight.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2014
@HannesAlfven
So, we have a situation right now where Verschuur's claims have not yet been properly explained to either the astrophysicists nor the public.

from the link

https://en.wikipe...erschuur

Verschuur is at the center of a recent debate over the age of the universe.[10][11] He claims that images from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Wmap) are not pictures of the universe in its early form, but rather hydrogen gas clouds in our own galaxy. If he is shown to be correct, much work relating to the Big Bang Theory would be undermined.
On December 10, 2007 his work with respect to COBE, WMAP, and HI, was published in The Astrophysical Journal.[12] However, in a more systematic examination of the maps published that same year in The Physical Review, Land and Slosar [13] find the data do not support the correlation claimed by Verschuur.
[sic]
Reference 13 below

http://adsabs.har...76h7301L

yep
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2014
Observing the inferred velocity of HI hydrogen center around known critical ionization velocities within the all-sky surveys of HI hydrogen is like noticing that the wind tends to blow at very particular speeds, regardless of where one looks. It's like suddenly noticing that huge percentages of the drivers on our highways are driving at 35 mph, regardless of the speed limit.

These observed CIV's are to the EU what the black body spectrum was to the big bang. But, honestly, this argument is far less speculative than that one was. That was basically a story which sounded believable, but which was ultimately premised on a history of the universe which was necessarily metaphysical.

In this instance, we are talking about known plasma physics processes which can actually be explained to the public step by step, without recourse to any complex mathematics.

There are good reasons why it's not been explained well so far, but these messaging problems are being figured out ...
HannesAlfven
2.6 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2014
Captain Stumpy:

You're still not even at the point of learning what this Marklund convection model is. You're not listening to what I'm saying here. You guys are over-committing your stance on topics that you actually know nothing about. I know that because it's actually quite difficult to track down information on how Marklund convection actually works. It took me quite a bit of investigation to figure this stuff out. You're making a call on what to believe without having done any of that difficult research.

These people you're pointing to are clearly going to defend the WMAP. But, I've seen Verschuur talk in depth about the nuances of processing the 21-cm linewidth histograms, and it's plain-as-day obvious that these researchers defending the WMAP data did not take care to fit the curves like Verschuur has.

What is coming is going to be very painful for a lot of people. I'm sorry, but this is how science works. Out with the old, and in with the new.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
In this instance, we are talking about known plasma physics processes which can actually be explained to the public step by step, without recourse to any complex mathematics.

There are good reasons why it's not been explained well so far, but these messaging problems are being figured out

@HannesAlfven
if you are going to supply the explanation
use reputable sites and leave the EU links to the crackpots
EU sites are not reputable

if there is real science to what you are saying and your claims are supported, then there will be reputable link and references that you can use to support your claims and there will be no need to use EU links
things like published peer reviewed papers
studies with experiments / empirical data
etc

so use them, not the EU crackpot stuff
HannesAlfven
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2014
This is not about trusting sources. This is about learning what the observation that has been made IS, and simply relating that to the model which is being used to explain it. It is a matter of PRESENTATION such that people are not having to track down information. When it is explained in the proper way -- most important claim first, with the data right there alongside the claim, and even with the debate included to several levels deep -- it does not matter WHERE it is published. People can be made to suddenly realize:

"Oh f*ck"

When paradigm change hits you, it can really be an extraordinary experience. When your rational mind cannot conceive of any way that the data can be explained in any other way, it's like being on a roller coaster.

Crafting that experience requires learning psychology and sociology. And since those two subjects are not subjects which tend to be interests of people who follow the EU, it has taken a very long time to get to this point.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
@Alfven
ou're not listening to what I'm saying here

actually, I AM listening
I just dont want you to use EU crackpot links
if it is valid science, it will have valid supporting evidence out there
It took me quite a bit of investigation to figure this stuff out. You're making a call on what to believe without having done any of that difficult research

not making a call
I am trying to head off the EU crackpot sites
I'm sorry, but this is how science works. Out with the old, and in with the new.

understood, but science uses a method
and the EU sites tend to ignore valid science in order to make their claims
like cantdrive

just use real references and links and leave out the EU crackpot is ALL I am saying right now
if there is any validity to the claims, there will be reputable references you can use and NOT EU crackpot references
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
@alfven
This is not about trusting sources.... -- it does not matter WHERE it is published

I disagree
I cannot trust a source that is promoting a crackpot hypothesis
if it promotes one, it is likely to promote another less valid hypothesis

like I said
IF there is valid science behind your claims, there should be valid reputable studies that support it
THAT is ANOTHER way science works
When paradigm change hits you, it can really be an extraordinary experience. When your rational mind cannot conceive of any way that the data can be explained in any other way, it's like being on a roller coaster

I totally agree with that statement
i've been there before

if you are going to make the connection and explain it, there MUST be valid, provable science behind it, otherwise it is just conjecture and not supported
and even the greatest explanation that has no empirical data is nothing more than just a guess
HannesAlfven
2 / 5 (8) Jan 28, 2014
Re: "science uses a method
and the EU sites tend to ignore valid science in order to make their claims
like cantdrive"

Unfortunately, the method which got science to this point has involved ignoring IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. And that's a huge problem for astrophysicists who are trying to accurately model cosmic plasmas.

All of this business about deciding what journals to ignore is really indefensible. IEEE is one of the most respected journals in the history of mankind. They have had their hands in the most complex technologies which have evolved over the past few decades. Peratt was an advisor to the Department of Energy, where he -- presumably -- worked on nukes for the gov't. Astrophysical models are held to a completely different standard than these IEEE technologies: When they don't work, nothing actually happens other than the generation of new models.

People who don't see the difference are basically accepting other peoples' dogma.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
@HannesAlfven
perhaps you misunderstand
because I dont care one whit about other people's dogma's
I said that Electric Universe sites are crackpot sites as they are based upon unproven conjecture and invalid claims

about plasma physics, I have posted plasma physics links here in the past
therefore there are reputable links out there
plasma physics is a specialized field of study in science and reputable, and has reputable links/reference sites
therefore if you are referencing plasma physics, there should be reputable links if it is based upon valid science
if you have a valid study with empirical data then link it

just don't sink so low as to post the electric universe site as a valid reputable link because it is not
IF there is valid science, even on the EU site, there should be studies posted elsewhere that are reputable that you can use to link to
vidyunmaya
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
Sub; Cosmic Plasmas drive down to Milky way
NANDI introduces new concepts for flow-fields integration..author vidyardhi nanduri COSPAR 2013
Plasma Regulated Electro-Magnetic phenomena under Magnetic Fields Environment
holds the key for interpretation of data from space probes and Explorers.
The author has been working in the field of Space plasmas integration to Human being Environment and Space-
a natural philosohical link since 1984 and more specifically after 1991 IEEE -ICOPS group interaction that support
Research efforts beyond Van-Allen Belts.
Super-imposition of Visible -Invisile matrix mode over space based observations-author vidyardhi nanduri- COSPAR-2013 Conference-
The Cosmological Index is a drive to Milky Way Sensitive Index and as such the Onset-mode must be viewed as a Curtain raiser to the present day concepts that provide confusion through Big-Bang, Singularity and other theories with limited perception of Science in Philosophy.
http://vidyardhic...ion.html
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2014
Hannes,

Can you give a clear concise explanation of the "Electric Sun" theory. How EXACTLY does the sun get it's power from electrical properties? How well does this fit into nucleosynthesis? How well does it fit our theories of fusion in thermonuclear weapons and fusion reactors?
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
(cont) We all know our theories on nuclear weapons are sound...they work quite well. How did we get them to work with current models of fusion (which are the same ones that apply to the Sun) if they are so far off?

Forgive me if I'm being a bit obtuse, but it seems like you're saying our science regarding nuclear theory and gravity is wrong when we have practical technologies that do indeed work exactly as expected using both...
barakn
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
The curves have to be fitted by hand, and it can take thousands of hours of careful work to get the 21-cm shifts into linewidth histograms that can be trusted.
No possibility of bias being introduced by that method! (Hint: sarcasm)
no fate
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2014
Modernmystic: Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission...not fusion. The only simlarity is the involvement of atoms. The theory of Hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun as the driver of it's energy production is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

Captain Stumpy: Supporting somthing just because the reigning authority says to is anti-american. Supporting it because it works makes sense.
billpress11
4 / 5 (4) Jan 28, 2014
No fate, I think it is the other way around. While the first atomic bombs were fission bombs today's are hydrogen fusion bombs. You are correct in that nuclear power plants use fission though.
no fate
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 28, 2014
The explosive power of any nuclear weapon comes from the fissioning of radioactive material. The fusion portion of an H bomb is to generate the energy required for the fission. The Wiki definition of a thermonuclear bomb is good in it's description of function and construction. You are correct in that a fusion reaction is produced in an H-bomb, but that reaction isn't the energy release we see, the EMP, column of fire and mushroom cloud are all fission at it's finest.
barakn
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 28, 2014
No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2014
@no fate
Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission


POWERPLANTS work off fission, but weapons today:
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion.


https://en.wikipe...r_weapon

The other basic type of nuclear weapon produces a large proportion of its energy in nuclear fusion reactions. Such fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more colloquially as hydrogen bombs (abbreviated as H-bombs), as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). All such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission.
[sic]
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
@no fate
as for
Captain Stumpy: Supporting somthing just because the reigning authority says to is anti-american. Supporting it because it works makes sense.

I support good science, and I support science that works.

Linking to crackpot pseudoscience sites only shows that there is no science to support said theory
because if there was legitimate science, there would be legitimate studies authored and peer reviewed out there for them to link to

I am not condemning their point of view, just saying to post legitimate science with legitimate studies that are peer reviewed and can stand up to scrutiny, otherwise, it is a waste of time

@no fate & barakn
your posts re: fusion showed up after i posted. sorry about adding the fusion post as you are correct about the fusion/fission in weapons
billpress11
5 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2014
Modernmystic: Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission...not fusion. The only simlarity is the involvement of atoms. The theory of Hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun as the driver of it's energy production is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated.

Barakn, your description of the H-bomb explosion is correct. That is not what No fate stated. He stated is was NOT FUSION. Actually the H-bomb is chemical, fission fusion bomb. Secondly he stated the sun's fusion process "is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated." It seems to me he has this stated backwards also, the sun uses a P-P chain fusion the H-bomb does not.

No fate also implies that little energy comes from the fusion process in an H-bomb explosion.
That is not what Wiki stated, it states: "All such weapons derive a significant portion, and sometimes a majority, of their energy from fission."

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.

Excellent description, barakn. I just hope no terrorists read it, cuz it gave a lot of info...
no fate
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
@Billpress - The term "little energy" is relative... when compared with the energy of the fission process the fusion process that ignites it is indeed "little energy". However compared with a car battery it's power is immense.

The MarkIV Chevy big block engine that used to power stock cars in the 60's at races like the Daytona 500 are used as starter motors on Drag racers. Similar concept here, the fusion process is a starter motor, the fission process is the drag racer...alot more power.

I did incorrectly state it was P-P chain fission when it is rapid Neutron release that is initated by the energy from the fusion reaction in an H-bomb. My apologies sir.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
Modernmystic: Nuclear weapons and nuclear powerplants work because of fission...not fusion. The only simlarity is the involvement of atoms. The theory of Hydrogen fusion at the core of the sun as the driver of it's energy production is not at all similar to the P-P chain reaction when a nuclear bomb is detonated.
Wrong! It is exactly the P-P chain, based on very specific measurements of luminosity, neutrino flux, temperature and helioseismology.

Captain Stumpy: Supporting somthing just because the reigning authority says to is anti-american. Supporting it because it works makes sense.
Yea I agree, which is what he is doing. What are you doing, exactly?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
You are correct in that a fusion reaction is produced in an H-bomb, but that reaction isn't the energy release we see, the EMP, column of fire and mushroom cloud are all fission at it's finest.
What are you talking about! Absolutely dead wrong! Do you understand the difference between fusion and fission? Fusion is the forcing together, fission is the splitting apart. An atomic bomb uses explosives to create the temperature and pressure needed to invoke fission in a small lump of matter, which release incredible amounts of energy. A hydrogen bomb uses fission to create the energy needed to invoke fusion in the hydrogen placed in the housing of the h-bomb. This is the same process that occurs in the core of the sun due to the pressure and temperature of compressed (almost entirely) hydrogen.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
No fate is right. The earliest atomic bombs were terribly inefficient at initiating fission, and the vast majority of the "fuel" was released in the explosion without contributing to the energy of the explosion. The deuterium and tritium in an "H" bomb do technically fuse, but the desired result is not the release of energy, but the release of a neutron. These extra neutrons react with lithium to produce more neutrons and more tritium, or they induce fission in heavier nuclei (uranium, plutonium...). The result is simply more complete fission, and therefore a much bigger yield from the same amount of fissionable material. Most of you probably think the fission explosion is merely a fuse to light off a bigger fusion explosion, but that's not how it works.
No barakn, you have that wrong. The early nuclear bombs created energy via fission alone. The explosives used to surround the uranium core were configured to direct heat and pressure into the core, initiating ..cont..
Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
..cont.. initiating fission; the release of a neutron, which impacts another atom, causing it to immediately split, releasing two neutrons + energy. These two each impact more atoms, creating a chain reaction and viola, boom. A hydrogen bomb depends on fusion, which is invoked when the temperature and pressure of the fission reaction induced through chemical explosives causes the hydrogen contained in the bomb to fuse. A hydrogen bomb can misfire (and often did at first) and still create a gigantic explosion because the fission reaction occurs but does not induce fusion in the hydrogen.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
Well damn. Ok, I am wrong, barakn especially is right and no fate is right in saying the fission reaction creates the observable effects. The fusion reaction is indeed used to cause a more efficient fission reaction, so my humble apologies.
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
So what about nucleosynthesis? Can we electrically create elements from hydrogen? Can I do alchemy in my garage with a car battery?
cantdrive85
2.8 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
So what about nucleosynthesis? Can we electrically create elements from hydrogen? Can I do alchemy in my garage with a car battery?

Well I suppose, if you have one of these...
http://www.sandia...nce.html
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
In regard to Verschuur and Marklund Convection:

People like our HannesAlfven claim that Verschuur has a good idea and that the only thing holding him back is a conspiracy. They claim that if mainstream science would take a serious look, Verschuur would be proven correct.

The problem with that is that mainstream science actually did take a serious look at his work, since it did present a plausible scenario. See, that's how good science works; If someone suggests a problem with your work, you go and do the work needed to test their suggestion. So, that's actually what happened. People actually did go back and double-check the WMAP observations, to make sure Verschuur wasn't right. They were not able to reproduce Verschuur's results. Sorry, that's game over. Verschuur is doing the same thing as ghost hunters who find signals in static that sound like voices. You can 'find' just about any signal you want in random noise, but that doesn't make it real.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
I'm sure you have the location of the published papers that show these tests of Verschuur's research and the results thereof.
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
"I'm sure you have the location of the published papers that show these tests of Verschuur's research and the results thereof."

Captain Stumpy posted a link earlier in this thread (thanks). Here's a link to the paper: http://arxiv.org/...03v2.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 31, 2014
So they admit a correlation but insist it is a coincidence. My statistics and the edifice of BB theory is better than your theories! Nah, nah na, nah na,nah...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
So they admit a correlation but insist it is a coincidence

@cantread
looks like they saw no convincing evidence to me...
Firstly, correlations will inevitably appear from random fluctuations and one must not use
a-posteriori statistics to claim detections. Even if one is forced to do so, the required significance bar should be significantly higher than in the case of expected results.
Secondly, correlations by eye are very misleading and quantitative methods must be employed. Today's Monte-Carlo methods allow for easy assessment of significance.
We tested for correlation between the third-year WMAP CMB maps and LAB data of Galactic Hi. We considered three different masks, CMB frequency bands, angular scales and 89 different Hi velocity slices. We do not find any convincing evidence for a correlation. The
lack of correlation demonstrates how impressively clean the WMAP CMB maps are, outside of the masked regions.
[sic]
from the conclusions
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
See cantdrive, that's how science actually works. Gswft7 correctly describes the process, and now you have actually been a part of it while it was happening.

One difference between the pseudo-scince that is EU and real science is that EU looks for evidence of phenomena that supports their pre-conceived notions of how it should be, whereas science looks at phenomena and askes "how could this be".

A few minutes checking on Vershuur's claims revealed the claims had been looked at and found to be wanting. That "checking" thing candrive? That's called "critical thinking" and that is the thing you do not do, and that is also the thing that allows pseudoscientific fringe theory like EU to persist in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence that it is hogwash. The EU gurus' life blood is making sciency sounding claims and then depending on people who will take the claims at face value without checking on them.