Image: Star factory NGC 7538

Mar 04, 2014
Credit: ESA/Herschel/PACS/SPIRE. Acknowledgements: Cassie Fallscheer (University of Victoria), Mike Reid (University of Toronto) and the Herschel HOBYS team

(Phys.org) —The billowing clouds portrayed in this image from ESA's Herschel observatory are part of NGC 7538, a stellar nursery for massive stars. Located around 9000 light-years away, this is one of the few regions of massive-star formation that are relatively close to us, allowing astronomers to investigate this process in great detail.

Star factories like NGC 7538 consist mainly of hydrogen gas, but they also contain small amounts of . It was through this minor – but crucial – component that Herschel could image these star-forming regions, because dust shines brightly at the far-infrared wavelengths that were probed by the observatory.

With a total mass of almost 400 000 Suns, NGC 7538 is an active factory where stars come to life – especially huge ones that are over eight times more massive than the Sun. Hundreds of seeds of future stellar generations nestle in the mixture of surrounding gas and dust scattered across the image. Once they reach a , they will ignite as stars. Thirteen of these proto-stars have masses greater than 40 Suns, and are also extremely cold, less than –250ºC.

One group of stellar seeds seem to trace a ring-like structure, visible in the left part of the image. The ring may be the edge of a bubble carved by previous stellar explosions – as stars reach the end of their lives and explode as dramatic supernovas – but astronomers are still investigating the origin of this peculiar arrangement.

The image is a composite of the wavelengths of 70 microns (blue), 160 microns (green) and 250 microns (red) and spans about 50 x 50 arc minutes. North is up and east is to the left. It was first published in the paper Herschel Reveals Massive Cold Clumps in NGC 7538 by Fallscheer et al. 2013.

Explore further: Image: The NGC 5194 spiral galaxy

More information: "Herschel reveals massive cold clumps in NGC 7538." C. Fallscheer, et al. C. Fallscheer et al. 2013 ApJ 773 102 The Astrophysical Journal Volume 773 Number 2. DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/2/102.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Image: The NGC 5194 spiral galaxy

Jan 28, 2014

The Whirlpool Galaxy, also known as M51 or NGC 5194, is one of the most spectacular examples of a spiral galaxy. With two spiral arms curling into one another in a billowing swirl, this galaxy hosts over ...

Cygnus-X: the cool swan glowing in flight

May 10, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Chaotic networks of dust and gas signpost the next generations of massive stars in this stunning new image of the Cygnus-X star-nursery captured by ESA’s Herschel space observatory.  ...

Image: A storm of stars in the Trifid nebula

Jan 30, 2014

(Phys.org) —A storm of stars is brewing in the Trifid nebula, as seen in this view from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE. The stellar nursery, where baby stars are bursting into being, ...

Blowing bubbles in the Carina Nebula

Jun 04, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Giant bubbles, towering pillars and cascading clouds of dust and gas fill the star-forming nursery of the Carina Nebula seen here in a stunning new view from Herschel to launch ESA Space Science’s ...

Young stars paint spectacular stellar landscape

Nov 13, 2013

Astronomers at ESO have captured the best image so far of the clouds around the star cluster NGC 3572. This image shows how these clouds of gas and dust have been sculpted into bubbles, arcs and the odd features ...

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 : 59

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
The ring may be the edge of a bubble carved by previous stellar explosions – as stars reach the end of their lives and explode as dramatic supernovas – but astronomers are still investigating the origin of this peculiar arrangement.

So according to an astrophysicist that graces our presence on these threads, space plasma physicists know the in and outs of plasma and their knowledge does not deviate from that of laboratory plasma. Yet for some strange reason this filamentary and cellular structure is a "peculiar arrangement". Makes me wonder where the disconnect is resides.

"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it." Richard Feynman

Probably talking about plasma...
Tuxford
1 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
Simple as pie, in front of your eye, and yet...

The nebula is a consequence of the very massive, very active stars blowing new gas formed from deep within their cores, into bubbles, forming the rings that so confuse fantasy-minded astronomers. The massive stars are not so much a consequence of the nebula. Astronomers have the whole model backwards. Maybe they should walk backwards? Perhaps such a maneuver would disrupt their stuck mentality.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
It's funny how often the two of you post on the same articles, each of you vigorously defending a theory incompatible with the other's. And yet neither one of you argues against the other's position. A pair of copy-and-paste trolls with nothing to copy - EU hasn't created a large volume of anti-LaViolette literature and LaViolette hasn't created a list of anti-EU arguments. You both are too weak minded to think up your own arguments, and so you have an unspoken truce, based upon your own incompetence. Or is it something different - some sort of anti-establishment feelings that allow you to believe each other's wacko ideas simply because they are not mainstream? Somebody ought to write a book about you both.
Rimino
Mar 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
I don't see any reason to introduce LaViolette theory, Plasma Universe or dense aether model into discussion about this observation. These theories have nothing to say about it and itcan be explained with existing astrophysical models.
One group of stellar seeds seem to trace a ring-like structure, visible in the left part of the image. The ring may be the edge of a bubble carved by previous stellar explosions
this feature can be observed quite well http://www.astron...02/23sn.

That is a perfect example of a kink instability, a plasma phenomena. A Bennet pinch, or Z-pinch, is the likely culprit of said features and PC/EU is front and center in the explanation and description of such phenomena. BTW, there is that hourglass shape of the z-pinch again.
Rimino
Mar 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
Being the material is plasma and not "gas", such claims are tenuous at best.
Rimino
Mar 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2014
Rimino has touched upon the core issue. Even the air you are breathing is partially ionized and EU, or at least cantdrive's confused version of it, does not have the tools necessary to treat your lungful of air as anything but plasma. This inability to recognize that fluid dynamics are necessary to explain some of the behavior of even a highly ionized plasma makes EU a philosophy disconnected from reality. To bastardize Baruch's observation, if everything is a plasma then everything looks like a z-pinch.
Bonia
Mar 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 06, 2014
That is a perfect example of a kink instability, a plasma phenomena
It's actually a hydrodynamic http://www.ifs.to...nall.png and it can be observed inside of vortex rings even without any charge - so it cannot serve as an evidence of some plasma. Also, the protostellar rings are vortex rings not Z-pinches. They're driven hydrodynamically with propagation of shock waves inside of interstellar gas, not electromagnetically.
Nice post! Next time, please also include a link to the explanation, not just the picture. here: http://scitation.....1575752
Bonia
Mar 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
It's actually a hydrodynamic


Hey Zeph
GREAT POST... thanks for that! that helped clear something up for me.
... is THIS the paper you were looking for?

http://journals.c...d=375796

sorry Maggnus... missed your link...
thanks for posting that one too!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2014
Being the material is plasma and not "gas", such claims are tenuous at best.

That's just as wrong this time as it was the last time you said it. Plasma is a gas, it just happens to be a gas of charged particles (and usually it's a gas that is a mix of neutral & charged particles). So it has to obey the usual laws of the physics of gases, as modified by the possible presence of electromagnetic fields and the effect of charge on particle interactions.
Rimino
Mar 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2014
Being the material is plasma and not "gas", such claims are tenuous at best.

That's just as wrong this time as it was the last time you said it. Plasma is a gas, it just happens to be a gas of charged particles (and usually it's a gas that is a mix of neutral & charged particles). So it has to obey the usual laws of the physics of gases, as modified by the possible presence of electromagnetic fields and the effect of charge on particle interactions.

And there-in lies the disconnect! Plasma is an entirely different state of matter, it is no more a gas as it is a liquid.

From LLNL definition of plasma;
"Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect. "
http://plasmadict...e=detail

More...
http://www.plasma...tml#what
yyz
4 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
From the "LLNL definition" of magnetic reconnection:

"When a plasma has some resistivity, then the frozen-in flow requirement is relaxed (see frozen-in flow). In that case, the magnetic field can move through the plasma fluid on the resistive (magnetic diffusion) time scale. (This is typically slow compared to MHD timescales.) This allows field lines to reconnect with each other to change their topology in response to magnetic and other forces in the plasma."

"...the predominant theory for solar flares is based on the transfer of energy from magnetic fields to plasma particles which can occur in reconnection. Reconnection is also studied in the laboratory."

http://plasmadict...e=detail

So it appears, according to your logic, that LLNL accepts the reality of magnetic reconnection. Or are they talking out of their asses too?

yyz
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
Notice too that definition of magnetic reconnection mentions frozen-in flows. What's the "LLNL definition" of frozen-in flow laws?

"In a plasma which is nearly perfectly conducting, the relevant surfaces move with the plasma; the result is that the plasma is tied to the magnetic field, and the field is tied to the plasma. Motion of the plasma thus deforms the magnetic field, and vice versa. The magnetic flux is said to be "frozen into" the plasma. Also known as flux trapping or frozen-in fields."

http://plasmadict...e=detail

So it again appears, according to your logic, that LLNL accepts the reality of frozen-in fields. Gosh, it appears LLNL disagrees with cantdrive on the reality of these two phenomena. Which source should I trust? Hmmm
yyz
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
"Plasmas have unique physics compared to solids, liquids, and gases; although plasmas are often treated as extremely hot gases, this is often incorrect. "

Notice there is no claim that it is *entirely* incorrect, as cantdrive does.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
So it appears, according to your logic, that LLNL accepts the reality of magnetic reconnection. Or are they talking out of their asses too?

Afraid so.

"In a plasma which is nearly perfectly conducting,

Theoretical construct which is not found in nature. As such, pseudoscience, just as reconnecting field lines.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
As such, pseudoscience, just as reconnecting field lines.

@cd
repeating a lie does NOT make it more true over time
especially given that you have been proven wrong over and over
and with PLASMA physics sites to boot!
See:
In all of these cases it is well known and definitively proven that Alfven was wrong. See, for instance, "Fundamentals of Plasma Physics", Paul Bellan, University of Cambridge Press, 2006; "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice", Priest & Forbes, University of Cambridge Press, 2000; "Reconnection of Magnetic Fields: Magnetohydrodynamics and Collisionless Theory and Observations", Birn & Priest (editors), University of Cambridge Press, 2007. Alfven's failures along these lines are well known throughout the plasma physics community.

found here
Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
or see: http://mrx.pppl.gov/
http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/publications.html

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2014
As such, pseudoscience, just as reconnecting field lines.

@cd
to continue
see also:
"Magnetic Reconnection"; Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji; Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (2010), number 15 on the publications list.
http://farside.ph...king.pdf

http://w3fusion.p...edu/ifs/

http://adsabs.har...56..152N

http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/

given that this proves that you have no idea what you are talking about with your comments above, are you sure you wish to continue this charade?

THANKS to Tim Thompson for supplying all those links above, as well as feedback: found here
http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Bonia
Mar 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
And there-in lies the disconnect! Plasma is an entirely different state of matter, it is no more a gas as it is a liquid.

Plasma is often called a 4th state of matter, but it in fact is no such thing; calling it that is a very bad idea, because people like you are likely to take the words too literally and thus draw the usual very wrong conclusions. The particles of a plasma, like the particles of a gas, have mass & kinetic energy, and are obliged to obey all the same laws of kinematics & dynamics as are the particles of a common neutral gas. Look at what I actually said:
So it has to obey the usual laws of the physics of gases, as modified by the possible presence of electromagnetic fields and the effect of charge on particle interactions.

All of the laws of physics always apply everywhere and everywhen, and that always includes plasma physics.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Theoretical construct which is not found in nature. As such, pseudoscience, just as reconnecting field lines.

Wrong, as usual. Alexander Schekochihin is a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford University, and Associate Professor of Theoretical Astrophysics and Plasma Physics.
http://www-thphys...ochihin/

Here is Prof. Schekochihin's detailed description of magnetic flux freezing in tokamak plasmas:
http://www-thphys...ochihin/wpi/workshop4_pdfs/cowley.pdf

Both frozen magnetic flux and magnetic reconnection are seen in laboratory plasmas, and your continual denial of these known facts does not make them any less factual.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
Re: "All of the laws of physics always apply everywhere and everywhen, and that always includes plasma physics."

The issue is which forces dominate. Notice that EE's don't spend too much time worrying about the effects of gravity when they design circuits. This does not, of course, mean that EE's disagree that the "laws of physics always apply everywhere and everywhen".

The question which is being asked -- and which SHOULD be asked in cosmology -- is whether or not the universe is fundamentally electrodynamic rather than fundamentally gravitational. Honestly, anybody who is suggesting that we shouldn't even ask the question is advocating for ignorance.

Why would we refuse to ask such a fundamental question? There are by now very good reasons to ask it, and there is no solid foundation from which people like Tim ridicule competing ideas.

We're having the conversation for the very reason that Tim's worldview leads us to a 4% universe.
Tim Thompson
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2014
I do not ever discourage the asking of questions; there is no such thing as the question that should not be asked. I do not ridicule opposing ideas. But I do forcefully argue against *stupid* ideas, and yours are as profoundly stupid as one is likely to find in all of science. Your weakness is that you fail to realize the questions you ask were already asked & answered long ago, and the ideas you promulgate now have already failed the test.

It is a fact of experience, beyond debate, that both magnetic reconnection & the frozen flux approximation are valid in plasma physics. For you to argue that the things we see happen right in front of us must be impossible surely counts as stupid.

Astrophysicists use plasma physics where it is appropriate and gravitational physics where it is appropriate and electromagnetism where that is appropriate. And you have never once demonstrated a *quantitative* failure in that regard.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Re: "And you have never once demonstrated a *quantitative* failure in that regard."

But, Tim, the "quantitative failure" is the 4% universe. Why do you pretend that you can just set that enormous failure aside, as you criticize an attempt to solve that very problem? You're quite the specimen to observe. I do believe that people will one day study your conversations with the world, as an example for students of how dogma can blind people to sound arguments.

There is absolutely nothing stupid about asking if the universe is fundamentally electrodynamic. When we look at protostars, we can see that the mass is just not there to support gravitational collapse.

We see filamentation at the intergalactic, interstellar and interplanetary scales. We see bipolar morphologies suggestive of pinches all over the place. These are extremely rational reasons to believe that we are looking at cosmic plasmas conducting electricity.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Careful Gaussian curve fitting reveals critical ionization velocities all over the HI hydrogen sky.

We see magnetic fields all over the place. Electric currents and magnetic fields tend to go hand-in-hand.

We see planetary nebulae co-aligned along our own galactic axis!

Scientists still struggle to explain the source of the incredibly energetic emissions of lightning, because they prefer to insist that the energy must originate in the clouds themselves.

We see rilles on the Moon and Venus which go both down AND UP over the terrain. The Colorado River punches straight through the Kaibab Upwarp instead of going around it.

We see chains of craters in the shape of rilles on Mars, which should inspire planetary scientists to question the cause for the rilles.

We can see that there is a history to magnetohydrodynamics which is NOT TAUGHT to physics graduate students.

The Sun's corona is far hotter than its surface. That's an indicator of the source of the energy, Tim.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Most incriminating of all, we can plainly see that the cosmic plasma models idealize the cosmic plasma as perfect conductors -- suggesting that these models are fundamentally DESIGNED to emulate the behavior of gases. A plasma which cannot sustain an electric field would fail to be of any use for engineers who design products down here on Earth that involve plasmas. Your fluorescent bulbs would not work on those cosmic plasma models. That's a very serious red flag.

People who are on the fence should compare Phil Plait's explanation of sn1987a with Wal Thornhill's. There is no comparison, people. Wal explains 1987a using laboratory plasma physics processes. Phil Plait's explanation seems contrived, by comparison, and he constantly emphasizes the objects various mysteries.

Astrophysical textbooks commonly admit that most of what we see in space is matter in the plasma state, so should we NOT be inspecting differences in those cosmic plasma models with the laboratory observations?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Let's put this another way: We know what a gravitational galaxy should look like based upon simulations. Our observations lead astrophysicists to infer dark matter, but all that can be said for sure is that there exists unknown forces between some stars which do not match our expectations for a gravity-dominated galaxy.

We can approach this problem in two distinct ways: We can start from the bottom, and work our way up, as conventional theory does. This approach basically suggests that since gravity appears to dominate at our scale of existence, then we can extend that inference to larger scales.

Or, we can approach this problem from the top, down. At the largest scales, we observe filamentation of galaxies. This morphological tendency does not follow from gravity. What is remarkable about this filamentation is that if you look within the filaments, you see more filaments. So, this is actually a fractal-based structure, when observed from the top-down.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2014
Plasma is often called a 4th state of matter, but it in fact is no such thing; calling it that is a very bad idea, because people like you are likely to take the words too literally and thus draw the usual very wrong conclusions. The particles of a plasma, like the particles of a gas, have mass & kinetic energy, and are obliged to obey all the same laws of kinematics & dynamics as are the particles of a common neutral gas.

That says everything right there, that is the crux of the situation. Your view is exactly the point of those who are critical of you. It is in fact a distinct state of matter, a state that is dominated by EM. Hell, even Wiki acknowledges it's a distinct state;
http://en.wikiped...physics)

The gas laws astrophysicists use do not take into account the collective effects of plasma. The standard theory you so cling to requires what you say to be true or else the entire edifice will evaporate along with epicycles and such...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 10, 2014
Filamentation and self-repeating fractal-like patterning is generally known as a Lichtenberg morphology. Now, it does not look to us in our images exactly like lightning bolts because electricity's morphology slightly changes based on the medium, and we are only able to see certain branches of this system which exhibit sufficient charge-density to reveal themselves.

So, here's a question: What is the basis for choosing the bottom-up approach to interpreting what we're seeing here? Our human tendency will always be to assume that what we see immediately around us is a good basis for making inferences. But, as scientists, we know this is simply a bias.

If we were being rational scientists about this, we would actually infer the 1st-order force in a top-down manner. We would expect the 2nd-order effects to dominate towards the smaller scales -- like at the scale of our solar system and planet.

The universe's fundamental force will be most obvious at the highest scales.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 11, 2014
Re: "It is a fact of experience, beyond debate, that both magnetic reconnection & the frozen flux approximation are valid in plasma physics. For you to argue that the things we see happen right in front of us must be impossible surely counts as stupid."

They are valid within your worldview. But, your worldview is that where you see electromagnetism in space, you simply ASSUME that it is a 2nd-order effect -- a side effect of other more fundamental phenomena.

That is your choice to make. What is wrong is that you've been using your credentials to convince people that this is their ONLY rational option for belief. That's not at all accurate.

You are willing to accept the existence of constructs which support your worldview, but not known forces observed in laboratory settings applied to cosmic phenomena, in the event that these alternative claims deviate from the ASSUMPTION that where you see electromagnetism, it MUST be a 2nd-order side effect of more fundamental processes.
Bonia
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2014
The difference with the PC model is that no DM nor extra dimensions need be conjured up to explain what is happening. The clouds of ordinary matter behave as there is DM there because EM is running the show and not gravity.
Rimino
Mar 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
HannesAlfven says ...
At the largest scales, we observe filamentation of galaxies. This morphological tendency does not follow from gravity.

Factually false statement. See the Millennium simulation, which nicely reproduces the filamentary structure we call the "cosmic web". The only force involved is gravity, along with the thermodynamics necessary to allow the collapsing gas clouds to cool

Filament formation described here:
http://cosmicweb....nts.html

Video study of Millennium simulation here:
http://www.youtub...sySs3RGU

Millennium simulation described here:
http://adsabs.har...35..629S

Key software and physics described here:
http://adsabs.har...64.1105S

Filamentation is easily explained by gravity without plasma physics.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
Me:
It is a fact of experience, beyond debate, that both magnetic reconnection & the frozen flux approximation are valid in plasma physics. For you to argue that the things we see happen right in front of us must be impossible surely counts as stupid.


HannesAlfven:
They are valid within your worldview.


Is it possible to be more ridiculous than this? Things that happen right in front of you are not something from your "worldview". They are factual events that happen right in front of you. Both magnetic reconnection and frozen flux are factual things that happen right in front of you. That would be the end of the story, but for reasons beyond comprehension you seem to think that watching things happen right in front of you is not good enough, despite constantly beating the drum of laboratory plasma physics. Nobody but you can understand that.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2014
HannesAlfven:
Most incriminating of all, we can plainly see that the cosmic plasma models idealize the cosmic plasma as perfect conductors

Factually false statement. No they do not. It is well known that the conductivity of most plasmas is very high, but not infinite. If the diffusion time scale for a magnetic field in the plasma is longer than the time scale of the phenomena under study, then obviously the frozen flux *approximation* is valid, and otherwise not.

Example:
See "The general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic dynamo equation"; Marklund & Clarkson, MNRAS 358(3): 892-900, April 2005. The authors specifically use a finite plasma conductivity.
http://adsabs.har...58..892M

Cosmic plasma models do not generally assume infinite conductivity. They compute the conductivity and only then, based on the time scales, decide whether or not the *approximation* is valid.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
HannesAlfven:
But, Tim, the "quantitative failure" is the 4% universe. Why do you pretend that you can just set that enormous failure aside, as you criticize an attempt to solve that very problem?

What failure? Why do you think it's a failure? It may someday turn out to be a failure, but that is certainly not a valid description now. Dark matter is very prosaic: simply a bunch of stuff with mass we have not seen yet. How can that be anything but ordinary? Dark energy is a bigger complication, but hardly a "failure"; rather, looks like a great success to me (and almost everybody else).

It is not "an attempt to solve that very problem" that I criticize. It's stupidity that I criticize. The "answers" that you propose are mostly things already proven false, or things known to violate the laws of physics. Offer an answer that makes sense and many who ignore you for good reasons now, will pay attention then.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
cantdrive85:
The difference with the PC model is that no DM nor extra dimensions need be conjured up to explain what is happening.

But since the PC model has no acceptable basis in known physics and is entirely qualitative in nature, it is a vastly inferior attempt to solve cosmological problems, compared to the standard cosmology, which is entirely consistent with physics as we know it.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
cantdrive85:
Hell, even Wiki acknowledges it's a distinct state;

Can you read? Wiki says "plasma is often called the fourth state of matter", but certainly does not say that is is the fourth state of matter. It's not called that by me, and I am not alone in that practice.

cantdrive85:
The gas laws astrophysicists use do not take into account the collective effects of plasma.


Can you read? I said (on this page):
Plasma is a gas, it just happens to be a gas of charged particles (and usually it's a gas that is a mix of neutral & charged particles). So it has to obey the usual laws of the physics of gases, as modified by the possible presence of electromagnetic fields and the effect of charge on particle interactions.


Which part of "as modified by the possible presence of electromagnetic fields and the effect of charge" is too complicated for you?
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
HannesAlfven:
The issue is which forces dominate. Notice that EE's don't spend too much time worrying about the effects of gravity when they design circuits.

My point exactly! Under normal circumstances, in such cases gravity can be ignored. But if they were designing a circuit to operate on the surface of a neutron star, they certainly would worry about it. They don't usually worry about Earth's magnetic field either, but for precise applications or work in strong magnetic fields, they do worry about it.

In plasma astrophysics, we don't usually worry about the electrical conductivity of the plasma because it is usually irrelevant. But when we work with a phenomenon that is slow compared to the plasma time scales, we worry about it. Same thing for the EE's as for the plasma folks.

Experienced scientists & engineers in any field know when approximations are valid and when they are not. You seem to think they never are, which is obviously quite wrong.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 11, 2014
Is it not reasonable to apply the label "pseudoscientist" upon those who deny the possibility of that which is observed to happen?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
Can you read? Wiki says "plasma is often called the fourth state of matter", but certainly does not say that is is the fourth state of matter. It's not called that by me, and I am not alone in that practice.

Can I read? I wonder if you can, let's try an exercise in copy/paste from Wiki. Here it goes;

"Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas)."

That's quite the misinformation program you've got going there. Train under Goebbels?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
let's try an exercise in copy/paste from Wiki

@cd
on the SAME page, it also says
Plasma is often called the fourth state of matter after solid, liquids and gases.[13][14]It is distinct from these and other lower-energy states of matter. Although it is closely related to the gas phase in that it also has no definite form or volume, it differs in a number of ways...

Wiki ALSO says
plasma is the pale-yellow liquid component of blood that normally holds the blood cells in whole blood in suspension. It makes up about 55% of the body's total blood volume.[1] It is the intravascular fluid part of extracellular fluid (all body fluid outside of cells).

IMHO-given that there is a distinct difference ON THE PAGE and that Mr.Thompson is actually IN THE FIELD whereas you are just an EU acolyte pushing a pseudoscience that is so bad it cant even rate hypothesis and Wiki is not always 100% all the time: I would go with Tim's description (I bet most physicists/astrophysicists do)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2014
is one of the four fundamental states of matter

4-3=0? 4-3=TT!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 12, 2014
Can I read? I wonder if you can, let's try an exercise in copy/paste from Wiki. Here it goes
Well, raise my rent! You really can read. That's a good start. So the page is at best mildly self-contradictory. Not awe inspiring. It's also Wikipedia, which is an authoritative source for absolutely nothing. And finally, who really cares? What if it really is a genuine 4th state of matter? What does that have to do with anything? All states of matter, no matter what they are, obey the same laws of physics. So why is it supposed to matter that plasma may or may not be a 4th state of matter? All that matters is that you do the physics right. And so far, your track record along those lines is a matter of concern.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2014
TT, the theoretical astrophysicist says;
All states of matter, no matter what they are, obey the same laws of physics.


A. Peratt, an experimental plasma physicist says;
Errors in perception have also been made, especially in the case of 'Ionized Gases,' a topic studied intensely in the early 1900's. However, gases and plasmas are distinct states of matter. The fluids states of gas and liquid are treated with the Navier-Stokes equation whereas plasmas are treated with the Boltzmann and Maxwell equations.

The same physics, different forces driving action...
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2014
The same physics, different forces driving action

Well, duh! Isn't that the whole point? Whether or not we choose to call plasma a 4th state of matter is irrelevant. Using the right physics is the point. The Navier-Stokes equations are fluid mechanics and only make sense in a highly collisional regime where the individual particles can be ignored and the fluid properties dominate the physics (although in the case of a plasma or an ionized gas, one must include Maxwell's equations for obvious reasons). The Boltzmann equation is also collisional, but can address the micro-physics at a particle level. Both systems of equations are valid for both plasma & ionized gas, which are in fact the same things exactly.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2014
TT
Both systems of equations are valid for both plasma & ionized gas, which are in fact the same things exactly.

BZZZT
Errors in perception have also been made, especially in the case of 'Ionized Gases,'


The errors are by those who refuse to acknowledge the difference between the idealized gas models "that we know to be wrong by experimentation", versus the those of the particle/circuit models used by plasma physicists such as Dr. Peratt developed via lab experimentation. The two parallel paths of research (theoretical vs experimental) into plasma physics Alfven spoke of in his Nobel lecture still exist to this day, sadly for science the theoreticians still dominate with their metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo...

http://www.nobelp...ture.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
Well, duh! Isn't that the whole point?

Why yes, EM is driving the action in plasma (99.99% of Universe), not gravity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
The two parallel paths of research (theoretical vs experimental) into plasma physics Alfven spoke of in his Nobel lecture still exist to this day, sadly for science the theoreticians still dominate with their metaphysical pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo

@cd
repeating the same thing over and over does NOT make it more true
given the following:
http://adsabs.har...56..152N
http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/
http://w3fusion.p...edu/ifs/
http://mrx.pppl.gov/
we can positively prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that your above claims are not only FALSE, but INTENTIONAL LIES meant for obfuscation
quoting a 44y/o article with the assumption that the world never changed without checking your facts is nothing short of stupidity, which is completely apparent given that you keep making the same unsubstantiated claim with NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

astrophysics plasma search on google scholar- About 228,000 results (0.06 sec)
Rimino
Mar 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2014
TT
Both systems of equations are valid for both plasma & ionized gas, which are in fact the same things exactly.

BZZZT
Errors in perception have also been made, especially in the case of 'Ionized Gases,'

The errors are by those who refuse to acknowledge the difference between the idealized gas models "that we know to be wrong by experimentation", versus the those of the particle/circuit models used by plasma physicists ...


Since nobody anywhere ever uses "idealized gas models" to study plasmas, why is all of this supposed to be relevant?
Tim Thompson
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2014
Well, duh! Isn't that the whole point?

Why yes, EM is driving the action in plasma (99.99% of Universe), not gravity.

Of course it is. What makes you think astrophysicists do not know that? Why do you continue to very falsely claim that astrophysicists use "gravity only"? Why do you very wrongly ignore all the work done by astrophysicists on electromagnetic fields & electric currents in space & astrophysical plasmas? In other words, why can't you deal honestly with the topic?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
Of course it is. What makes you think astrophysicists do not know that?

Why then must the standard theory invoke DM to explain the rotation of galaxies?
Tim Thompson
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
Why then must the standard theory invoke DM to explain the rotation of galaxies?

Because there is no known application of electromagnetic forces capable of causing the motion in question. Gravity is the only known force that can cause the observed effect. And remember, dark matter does not just explain the rotational motion of spiral galaxies, it also explains the apparently deep gravitational wells for galaxy clusters, and it also explains the relative strengths of the 2nd & 3rd peaks in the acoustic spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. Occam's razor: One simple assumption, that there is stuff we can't see yet, explains & answers all 3 problems at once.

If you think you have a better idea, go for it. But handwaving & guessing don't work. Something objective and at least a little bit quantitative is required.
Bonia
Mar 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
Because there is no known application of electromagnetic forces capable of causing the motion in question. Gravity is the only known force that can cause the observed effect.

You must not be familiar with Bostick's "Universe in a test tube";
http://www.plasma..._Bostick
Or Anthony Peratt's galaxy simulation of interacting plasmas;

http://www.plasma...ormation
His simulation confirms/agrees with the observed flat rotation curves; sychrotron radiation; morphologies of radio, quasars, Seyfert, spiral (barred and otherwise), and elliptical galaxies (i.e. life cycle); formation of dust lanes; the full spectrum of galactic jet phenomena; mophologies of multiple interacting galaxies; HI clouds; and the observed magnetic field properties of galaxies; and entire clusters of galaxies; among other things.
As you say, Occam's Razor and all. Why the need to invent DM when there are in fact known EM and plasma properties that explain what is observed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Mar 16, 2014
Then there is this plasma experiment which took place on the ISS and other microgravity conditions which seems to also confirm the vortical nature of plasmas in space...

http://www2011.mp...x_e.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
http://www.plasma..._Bostick
http://www.plasma...ormation

@CD85
why do you use links/references to KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES?
If there was ANY LEGITIMACY TO YOUR CLAIM, then you SHOULD be able to find supporting evidence somewhere OTHER than a PSEUDOSCIENCE SITE !!!!
THIS is essentially the LARGEST PROBLEM with the EU garbage you post! There are NO LEGITIMATE STUDIES to back up your claims! Just PSEUDOSCIENCE!
And lastly
Why the need to invent DM when there are in fact known EM and plasma properties that explain what is observed

GIVEN that astrophysicists observed an anomaly
AND astrophysicists are known to be proficient in plasma physics (as already proven-even in this thread)
THEN your comment is based upon a fallacy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
Then there is this plasma experiment which took place on the ISS and other microgravity conditions which seems to also confirm the vortical nature of plasmas in space...

http://www2011.mp...x_e.html

@cd85
for starters... this link alone proves that astrophysicists are well aware of plasma physics.
but that conversation aside...

I don't think this link is saying what YOU THINK it is saying... perhaps you should be more explicit in your claim?
the link DOES provide evidence of plasma structure
it also says
Gravity plays a crucial role for the structure of plasma crystals
&
In microgravity big 3-dimensional plasma crystals can be grown

Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2014
You must not be familiar with

The Bostick & ISS experiments are not relevant. The Snell & Peratt model is relevant but not any good. His model will produce a flat rotation curve for spiral "galaxies" if they are 100% tenuous plasma, but has no ability to affect the motion of stars or neutral clouds of dust & gas. Stars are particularly important, since they carry the bulk of the mass of a spiral galaxy. Furthermore, while his model applies only to spiral galaxy rotation curves, it is irrelevant to elliptical galaxies and it is irrelevant to the motion of galaxies in cluster and it is irrelevant to the acoustic spectrum of the cosmic microwave background. Like I said, "Occam's razor: One simple assumption, that there is stuff we can't see yet, explains & answers all 3 problems at once." You have to come up with a single plasma process that is simultaneously relevant to all 3 problems or it's no deal.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2014
The Bostick & ISS experiments are not relevant.

Odd being that is the experimental basis for Peratt's modeling.

but has no ability to affect the motion of stars or neutral clouds of dust & gas. Stars are particularly important, since they carry the bulk of the mass of a spiral galaxy. Furthermore, while his model applies only to spiral galaxy rotation curves, it is irrelevant to elliptical galaxies and it is irrelevant to the motion of galaxies

Inaccurate statements on every point;

http://www.plasma...PS-I.pdf

http://www.plasma...S-II.pdf

You have to come up with a single plasma process that is simultaneously relevant to all 3 problems or it's no deal.

Electric currents emit microwave radiation.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 19, 2014
His model will produce a flat rotation curve for spiral "galaxies" if they are 100% tenuous plasma


Yep, that is the key. There is a "skeletal" framework to galaxies held together by the electrodynamic dust which is produced by the central plasmoid and stars within the galaxy.

http://www.cosmol...hkin.pdf

Your DM has been found, it's not so "dark" and it is electrodynamically active.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 21, 2014
Inaccurate statements on every point

No, accurate statements at every point. nowhere in either paper does Peratt address the specific points I raised. He presents no coupling mechanism to force stars & the plasma to share a common motion, and he presents no argument for dense neutral clouds sharing the same motion as tenuous plasma. Beyond that, his models are very bad. For one thing they require the presence of enormous electric currents without bothering to identify an ultimate energy source to drive them, and we now know those currents do not exist in any case.
Electric currents emit microwave radiation.

But they do not emit microwave radiation with a thermal spectral energy distribution (SED). The CMB has the most precise thermal SED ever seen, including laboratory experiments. And the CMB is within a few millikelvins of the same temperature in every direction. No electric current can even come close to explaining the CMB, let alone its angular power spectrum.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
No, accurate statements at every point. nowhere in either paper does Peratt address the specific points I raised.

Those points are addressed in other papers cited by Peratt.

He presents no coupling mechanism to force stars & the plasma to share a common motion, and he presents no argument for dense neutral clouds sharing the same motion as tenuous plasma.

The coupling mechanism is EM, being stars are entirely made of plasma and that which they emit is plasma the fact they share a common motion is self explanatory.

and he presents no argument for dense neutral clouds sharing the same motion as tenuous plasma.


Verschuur along with Alfven and numerous lab experiments shown that not only are those "neutral" clouds plasma but they also feel the collective effects of the galactic motions.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2014
For one thing they require the presence of enormous electric currents without bothering to identify an ultimate energy source to drive them, and we now know those currents do not exist in any case.

Only because your ignorance blinds you... They are there, you choose to ignore them. The "cosmic web" of filaments, sheets, voids, clusters, etc..we readily observe is a result of electric currents flowing through plasma, another prediction of PC.
http://www.plasma...smic.pdf

We know that the galaxies local to our own share a common velocity and they are arranged in a "sheet", a known plasma formation created by electric currents.
http://en.wikiped...al_Sheet

Then there are the currents which connect nearby galaxy clusters with filaments of electric current;
http://www.mpia-h...hang.pdf

Then there are the smaller scale currents...
http://arxiv.org/...97v3.pdf

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.