Magnetic field discovery gives clues to galaxy-formation processes

June 18, 2015, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Combined radio/optical image of galaxy IC 342, using data from both the VLA and the Effelsberg telescope. Lines indicate the orientation of magnetic fields in the galaxy. Credit: R. Beck, MPIfR; NRAO/AUI/NSF; graphics: U. Klein, AIfA; Background image: T.A. Rector, University of Alaska Anchorage and H. Schweiker, WIYN; NOAO/AURA/NSF.

Astronomers making a detailed, multi-telescope study of a nearby galaxy have discovered a magnetic field coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. The discovery, they said, helps explain how galactic spiral arms are formed. The same study also shows how gas can be funneled inward toward the galaxy's center, which possibly hosts a black hole.

"This study helps resolve some major questions about how form and evolve," said Rainer Beck, of the Max-Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy (MPIfR), in Bonn, Germany.

The scientists studied a galaxy called IC 342, some 10 million light-years from Earth, using the National Science Foundation's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), and the MPIfR's 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Data from both radio telescopes were merged to reveal the magnetic structures of the galaxy.

The surprising result showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. Such a feature, never before seen in a galaxy, is strong enough to affect the flow of gas around the .

"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone," Beck said. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."

The new observations provided clues to another aspect of the galaxy, a bright central region that may host a black hole and also is prolifically producing new stars. To maintain the high rate of star production requires a steady inflow of gas from the galaxy's outer regions into its center.

"The magnetic field lines at the inner part of the galaxy point toward the galaxy's center, and would support an inward flow of gas," Beck said.

Large-scale Effelsberg radio image of IC 342. Lines indicate orientation of magnetic fields. Credit: R. Beck, MPIfR.

The scientists mapped the galaxy's magnetic-field structures by measuring the orientation, or polarization, of the radio waves emitted by the galaxy. The orientation of the radio waves is perpendicular to that of the magnetic field. Observations at several wavelengths made it possible to correct for rotation of the waves' polarization plane caused by their passage through interstellar magnetic fields along the line of sight to Earth.

The Effelsberg telescope, with its wide field of view, showed the full extent of IC 342, which, if not partially obscured to visible-light observing by dust clouds within our own Milky Way Galaxy, would appear as large as the full moon in the sky. The high resolution of the VLA, on the other hand, revealed the finer details of the galaxy. The final image, showing the , was produced by combining five VLA images made with 24 hours of observing time, along with 30 hours of data from Effelsberg.

Scientists from MPIfR, including Beck. were the first to detect polarized radio emission in galaxies, starting with Effelsberg observations of the Andromeda Galaxy in 1978. Another MPIfR scientist, Marita Krause, made the first such detection with the VLA in 1989, with observations that included IC 342, which is the third-closest spiral galaxy to Earth, after the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) and the Triangulum Galaxy (M33).

Beck reported the results of the research in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.

Explore further: VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

More information: Magnetic fields in the nearby spiral galaxy IC 342: A multi-frequency radio polarization study, Rainer Beck, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 578, Juni 2015, A93. DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425572

Related Stories

VLA reveals 'bashful' black hole in neighboring galaxy

June 17, 2015

Thanks to the extraordinary sensitivity of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), astronomers have detected what they believe is the long-sought radio emission coming from a supermassive black hole at the center of one ...

Charting the Milky Way from the inside out

June 4, 2015

Imagine trying to create a map of your house while confined to only the living room. You might peek through the doors into other rooms or look for light spilling in through the windows. But, in the end, the walls and lack ...

A new, distant arm of the Milky Way galaxy

June 13, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Our Milky Way galaxy, like other spiral galaxies, has a disk with sweeping arms of stars, gas, and dust that curve around the galaxy like the arms of a huge pinwheel.

Image: Our flocculent neighbour, the spiral galaxy M33

July 28, 2014

The spiral galaxy M33, also known as the Triangulum Galaxy, is one of our closest cosmic neighbours, just three million light-years away. Home to some forty billion stars, it is the third largest in the Local Group of galaxies ...

Recommended for you

Drilling success: Curiosity is collecting Mars rocks

May 23, 2018

Engineers working with NASA's Curiosity Mars rover have been hard at work testing a new way for the rover to drill rocks and extract powder from them. This past weekend, that effort produced the first drilled sample on Mars ...

Rosetta unravels formation of sunrise jets

May 23, 2018

The atmosphere of Rosetta's comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is far from homogeneous. In addition to sudden outbursts of gas and dust, daily recurring phenomena at sunrise can be observed. In these, evaporating gas and entrained ...

85 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

billpress11
4.8 / 5 (4) Jun 18, 2015
Does this mean that spiral galaxies would also have a north and south pole coming out of their centers? If so could that be the source of the power creating the jets we observe emanating from some galaxy's poles?
cantdrive85
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2015
The surprising result showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. Such a feature, never before seen in a galaxy, is strong enough to affect the flow of gas around the spiral arm.

Surprising only to those who refuse to accept the notion that magnetic fields aren't just magically there. It is the " flow of gas" (plasma Birkeland currents) which create the detected fields. Not so strangely these guys are putting the cart in front of the horse, as usual.
Stevepidge
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2015
@billpress11: no, or at least not likely (we can't see the fields in 3D, merely in projection, along our line of sight).

@cantdrive85: to a hammer, everything is a nail, eh? How can you tell, merely from what's in this PO article, whether the magnetic fields are aligned with currents (or not)? That's mighty powerful magic vision you have there!


Hammer ( gravity ), Nail ( the universe ) sound familiar?
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2015
Nope. Never heard that before ...

Funny, considering it would seem to be your religion...
Rainer Beck...I'm sure he'd investigate electric currents too, if only, empirical evidence for them (magnetic fields are directly observable - electric currents are not).


Beck, and yourself for that matter, would understand the presence of the magnetic field is "direct, empirical evidence" of the electric currents that create the fields. Unless of course, like yourself, one believes they are created by magic. Remember, electric currents and magnetic fields are inseparable hand maidens as has been shown for almost 200 years in a vast amount of directly observable experiments. Oh right, you believe Maxwell is a crank for not discovering magic magnetic fields like the astronomers have. According to you, since astronomers have yet to develop a way to "directly observe" electric currents they can't be there, yet they haven't a way to do so with DM, but it most certainly is. Ironic!
Psilly_T
1 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
this does help support tuxford's idea of growth from within, no hiding that. But sorry EU fans, no electrical currents have been detected yet =/ and no direct evidence that galaxies build dwarfs from within or that clusters are compact cores also growing from within. Maybe one day tux. but im sure this got you guys excited :) anyways...
so if the magnetic fields in Spirals help funnel fuel to the core to create new stars do magnetic fields in elliptical s act the same way? I also wonder if other galaxies are attracted to another galaxy's magnetic field and how far traces of a galaxies field extend.
billpress11
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 18, 2015
Cantdrive85 does have a point. Spiral galaxies do rotate and moving magnetic fields do create electric currents.
rossim22
2.5 / 5 (11) Jun 18, 2015

The difference is he's claiming a very particular kind of current, which is known to arise only in quite specific circumstances.


The attraction which exists between parallel currents do not "arise only in specific circumstances." There is a reason why twisting filamentary structures are ubiquitous in the Milky Way and the universal "web."

Here's a quote from Emeritus of the Alfven Laboratory, "[Birkeland Currents] in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth."

Only electrical currents create magnetic fields. Requiring a gravitational flow of already charged particles to create a magnetic field is unnecessary.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2015
Context JT, the statement;
"The result showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. "
Determined my claim, this is the morphology of a BC.

And I've explained my projected attitude towards these types of claims, I only intend to project the same surity as popsci articles project when reporting on hypothetical conjectures such as BH's, DM, BB's and other such nonsense, as ridiculous as it is...
arom
Jun 18, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 18, 2015
The difference being, of course, that there is nearly always at least one paper behind each popsci piece, and thousands behind that

A meaningless excuse when speaking of science. But hypocrisy is no stranger to you, is it?
an anti-science one.


Nope, not at all...
billpress11
3 / 5 (2) Jun 18, 2015
What is all the fuss about, it is pretty much an accepted fact that there are ionized gases in interstellar space and within galaxies, so moving magnetic fields among these ionized gases would create electric currents.

https://en.wikipe...r_medium
"In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays."
rossim22
1 / 5 (6) Jun 18, 2015
@JeanTate, here are a couple papers by Anthony Peratt on galaxy formation I'm sure you'll find to be a nice read. He's been working at Los Alamos National Laboratory for the last thirty-five years.
http://ieeexplore...D4316615

http://ieeexplore...D4316625

And evidence of electric currents in space:
http://ieeexplore...%3D45499

billpress11
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 18, 2015
JT, since the detected magnetic field in the article above is not in a solid, just how else could such a magnetic field be created? As for the photos in the blog link you sent it would appear most likely many if not most would have been created by magnetic fields and, or electrically charge plasma fields.

Aren't the northern lights created by charged electrical fields coming in contact with the earth's rotating magnetic field? If so, why would one find it hard to believe that a rotating spiral galaxy would not create its own magnetic field and electric currents? That to me just seems like a natural given.

wasp171
1 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2015
Birkeland currents, magnetic fields, electrical universe...electromagnetic force 10 powered to 39 stronger than gravity and so difficult to gravity prevailing (Newtonian) cosmology to accept.
No need for Modified Models of Gravity, Dark Matter and all that bs we see around.
Enthusiastic Fool
3 / 5 (2) Jun 19, 2015
Hi guys,

Not a scientist here and what follows is purely enthusiastic inquisitive conjecture. If electromagnetic radiation can't escape the event horizon then the SMBH can't be the "source" right? Could this be caused by friction between different speed ionized gasses in the accretion disk at the edge of the black hole slightly similar in concept to the convective solar dynamo?
Also:
Is it one cohesive gargantuan magnetic field or many smaller fields?
Would this cause some level of bias in magnetic measurements within the arms?
Would we notice if we were in a similar situation in the MW?
Thank you for the education. I'm not a crank I swear.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
More? Check out Koberlein's Quacks Like a Duck https://briankobe...ke-duck/

Thanks for the link. Added to favorites.

When looking at to phenomena which exhibit similarities there seems to be a an inability in the part of some people to separate the stuff that's relevant from the stuff that is not. Especially when it comes to patterns the underlying similarity is often not the specific forces involved (e.g. "it's all electric!"), but the nature of forces interacting (e.g. one that goes with distance squared vs. one that goes linear or with distance cubed). And ther are always several candidates for each...so the pattern alone does not tell us anything about the specific force.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
Looks like ol stumpydick got a new username. Huh jean tate?
Listen to cantdrive people. People like jean tate have no business postingbhere.
billpress11
1 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2015
JT, it appears to me you are blocking the "open door". Please stand aside and encourage some research into that field.

And AP, you surprise me, theories should be based on "patterns" or observations. That is where the differences come into play. Because observations can be very misleading, for example the earth appears flat or certainly the sun rotates around the earth. The biggest of all could eventually turn out to be the observed red-shift. Scientist should keep an open mind and not look upon their ideas with a religious like fervor.

dogbert
not rated yet Jun 19, 2015
"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone," Beck said. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."


An interesting observation.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
And AP, you surprise me, theories should be based on "patterns" or observations.

Sure. But the EU crowd are forgetting that correlation does not imply causation. To make definitive statements WITHOUT observation/test is not scientific.
Because observations can be very misleading

Indeed. Exatly what my post was about.
Scientist should keep an open mind

They do. If you had ever taken the time to get to know any you would know this. It's practically the definition and prerequisite for doing the job.
billpress11
1 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2015
JT, exactly what they are doing now but with an open mind. For example when they observe that the universe appears flat I would think long and hard before I would add an inflationary period that apparently happened everywhere at the same time to explain the flatness. Or I would question when I found out that distant super nova appear dimmer than theory calls for and say well maybe they are further than the present theory allows for. I would not make the claim that the expansion of the universe must be accelerating. After all one must be very careful when adding adjustments that cannot be proven to prove a theory.

AP, I agree, correlation does not mean causation, but much of our present BB theory is based on exactly that. I mean we can even disagree on causation.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
"To maintain the high rate of star production requires a steady inflow of gas from the galaxy's outer regions into its center."

Above copied from the article: Most likely as charged particles accelerate from the outer environs of the galaxy to the center, the increasing acceleration rate of those charged particles cause them to emit electromagnetic energy. It may be very similar to what happens when electrons move from one orbital position within an atom to another, it emits energy when it's orbital position moves closer to the nucleus & vice versa.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 19, 2015
Bill, I know you won't ever take our word for it... But scientists really do "keep an open mind" about such data. A lot of the time spent writing a paper is not actually spent supporting your hypothesis, but checking that it isn't some other hypothesis.

Tbh, I honestly wish "deniers" of mainstream science in a variety of fields could just walk a mile in scientists' shoes for a year. See what the work is actually like and how much actually goes into it. I bet a lot of them would change their tune.

But the internet rhetoric casts scientists as priests of some religious dogma, clinging tenaciously to ideas against all "facts" to the contrary. The rhetoric just doesn't match the reality of day-to-day science.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
Looks like ol stumpydick got a new username. Huh jean tate?
Listen to cantdrive people. People like jean tate have no business postingbhere.

In defense of JT, it's clear that this person is a thinker in contrast to Cap'n Stupid. I don't agree with much that he/she says, and many of the tactics used are similar. However, Cap'n Stupid is a complete meathead, incapable of an original thought and definitely a career military/FF man. JT is certainly towing the company line, but at least with some thought unlike Cap'n Dunderhead/Capslock.
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
I don't deny scientist think long and hard but just like in religion the herd mentality can and has many times in the past lead the herd over a cliff.

JT, as for what I would propose, well it sure looks like a slam dunk that the observed red shift is a fact, and it is. It also sure looks like the flatness of the observable universe rules out a BB, and it does, that is why the inflationary period had to be added. So which one trumps over the other, I for one cannot say. But there are other explanations for the observed red shift. I have yet to read about one that can explain away the flatness of the observable universe without resorting to the magic of an inflationary period that can not be proven.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
@JT

Thank you for your response and not 1/5ing me for my ignorance.
@Enthusiastic Fool:I'm not sure what you are referring to by 'this'


By 'this' I meant the galactic magnetic field. Could the galactic magnetic field be caused solely by ionized gas interacting in the accretion disk. I think you answered that but I just wanted to be clear.

Sorry, I don't understand your question

My question was whether or not the galactic magnetic field would cause erroneous magnetic measurements from within the host galaxy's frame of reference. For analogy if you were to 'zero' a scale that still had weight on it your readings would be off when you tried to weigh something else.

Thanks for your patience in weeding out my meaning. :)
billpress11
1 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
JT, why don't you think long and hard as to why the inflationary period was added? I have, I gave you one answer and can even give you another one if you cannot figure it out yourself.

Also answer why was an accelerating expansion of the universe added to the BB theory? That one should be easy for you to answer, I gave the answer in my previous posting.

As for the flatness of the universe, maybe it is flat because the universe is an infinite steady state recycling universe.

The observed red shift explanation? Here is a link to a possible explanation. Of all, I like it best because it uses no magic while conserving energy and momentum.

http://www.scribd...-Physics
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
@Benni: Most likely as charged particles accelerate from the outer environs of the galaxy to the center, the increasing acceleration rate of those charged particles cause them to emit electromagnetic energy.


This will produce synchrotron radiation (or something similar), which is well known and understood. The 'light' which is observed does not match the spectrum of such (AFAIK)
Which "light" is that?

It may be very similar to what happens when electrons move from one orbital position within an atom to another


No, it cannot possibly be that, for a wide range of reasons. But if it were, the spectrum would be even more different from what is actually observed.
Which "spectrum" is that? Charged particles accelerating from higher to lower energy levels do not emit a single continuous frequency of electromagnetism. Their energy emission varies with changing acceleration/deceleration.
lengould100
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 19, 2015
Is there perhaps ANY chance that an interesting article could show up here without the comments degenerating into a meaningless discussion of some electric universe thought experiment which simply degenerates into repetitive non-science?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
@Benni: If you read the Beck et al. paper, you'll find the observed radio emissions well described, including the distribution of what they conclude is synchrotron radiation. It does not match what you propose
I wasn't proposing it, just citing an example of a charged particle seeking the lowest energy level.

Charged particles accelerating from higher to lower energy levels do not emit a single continuous frequency of electromagnetism
The idea you proposed is "very similar to what happens when electrons move from one orbital position within an atom to another". In atomic transitions, electrons do not "accelerate", and they emit light at discrete frequencies{/q] But not all at the same frequency, it depends on the orbital position they transition to.

billpress11
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
JT, you claim that I did not give a reason why the inflationary period "had" to be added, okay enlighten me explain why it "had" to be added.

I'm still waiting for your answer for that and why the inflationary period had to be added. It is not worth carrying on a one sided question an answering session so it I do not get a response to those relatively simple questions I will just have to assume you do not know and are just one more in the follow the herd.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
Interesting, it looks like the magnetic field around a star (our Sun). But it must be mostly remnant and local fields that are swept up and have field lines frozen in with the rotating ionized gas of the galaxy.

""Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone," Beck said."

Well, that is what the latest cosmological simulations say, they make spiral galaxies nowadays. (But of course that doesn't predict the details of spiral galactic arms.) [ https://www.youtu...zdcFkB7w ]
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 19, 2015
And oy vey, the nuts is out in spades. If it isn't evolution that is denied it is magnetic fields that are promoted to do just about anything. Or even, ironically on a science site, science itself gets unsupported criticism:

"[scientist] herd mentality".

Oh yes, the conspiracy theory idea that somehow is consistent with science advances and a very few scientists getting the Nobel Prize... (O.o)

We are all still waiting to see the lauded science *results* that should come out of creationism, electric universes and conspiracy theories. Don't follow the herd with just trolling unsupported and repetitive criticism that bores everyone ,,, publish, by all means!
Benni
2.8 / 5 (4) Jun 19, 2015
In atomic transitions, electrons do not "accelerate", and they emit light at discrete frequencies
.....electrons absolutely do accelerate when they change orbital positions, it's the photon they emit that does not accelerate.

Electrons which are not 'attached' to ions/atoms/molecules can 'emit light' due to several, such as synchrotron, free-free (bremsstrahlung), inverse Compton effect


And this is what I was getting at, everything is about what happens when momentum of charged particles change, their energy levels also change, slow them down & they give up photons, the frequency of energy they give up depends on the rate of change of acceleration when slowing down.

I couldn't find the part in the Abstract making reference to the synchrotron effect, or for which charged particles have a discrete frequency of photon emission. It makes absolutely no sense that a particle emits only a single frequency with changing acceleration.

cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 19, 2015
Interesting, it looks like the magnetic field around a star (our Sun). But it must be mostly remnant and local fields that are swept up and have field lines frozen in with the rotating ionized gas of the galaxy.


Oy vey is right, "field lines frozen-in"...Moronic! As soon as you remove the current, the magnetic field collapses. There are no "remnant" fields, "primordial" fields or any other such nonsense.
billpress11
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 19, 2015
JT, I "had" to give you a 1 on your last posting, you were completely none responsive. In fact I got a chuckle out of it, thanks for the laugh.
Enthusiastic Fool
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
@JT
However, some may find this (from that document) to cause laughter:


That was legitimately funny. I thought he was about to make an insightful point about the arbitrary scales humans use for measurements and then he went and implied that the particles bend to match our scales. Paraprosdokian.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 20, 2015
Frequency is directly related to the length of a man-made unit of time, the second. If the length of a second is changed, the momentum and energy a photon contains changes also. ... All of our arbitrary units of measurement must be measured and conform to the basic units of nature. So how can a photon be a naturally occurring particle?

Seriously? Wow...just ...wow.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2015
And there are no (very few) spiral galaxies with 'double bulges', as required by his model.


It would seem the image above does show the double "bulge". Although it would seem a detailed observation such as that above would be required to detect them.

http://cdn.phys.o...fiel.jpg

What's ironic is your ability to look at an image such as the ones in the PO article, skim the text, and conclude - with apparent ironclad certainty - 'here be BCs!!'


And equally ironic are the astrophysicists that can look at a picture and claim 'here be BH's!!'

the currents Peratt's model is based on emit copious amounts of synchrotron radiation, which should be screamingly obvious in the microwave sky


What should be "screamingly obvious" is that Peratt researched this in length, and showed via lab experiment that the emissions will be absorbed and re-emitted in such a way to explain the apparent CMB.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2015
These researchers are very obviously pointing to magnetic fields that are moving gas to form stars. In other disciplines, this is called an electric current.
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
Let me try again, as this is not at all confusing:

When a researcher is saying that there is a magnetic field, and that it is responsible for the movement of gas, what he is obviously arguing for is that the spiral galaxy arms are electric currents.

You can surely represent this with various mathematics, but that's completely unnecessary in this case, and in fact the math only adds unnecessary complication.

The situation of the astrophysical discipline increasingly looks like a dynamic situation. There are clearly researchers who are itching to defy the conventional narrative of this discipline.
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 20, 2015
Vietvet
4 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2015
@Hannes

Not one mention of electric currents.

http://www.aanda....-14.html
HannesAlfven
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 20, 2015
Not one mention of electric currents.


I know, and that is why the situation is so ridiculous. There is an observable social stigma in this discipline with using this classical physics term to explain galactic observations. The radio astronomers seem slightly more grounded than many others on these issues, because it was only a half century ago that the astronomers were claiming that radio waves from space were either a hoax or a mistake. Radio astronomer, Gerrit Verschuur, starts his text, The Invisible Universe, by warning about scientists who can "know too much" to make a discovery. That is the lesson of the birth of these types of measurements, but many still clearly refuse to learn this important lesson.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jun 20, 2015
When a researcher is saying that there is a magnetic field, and that it is responsible for the movement of gas, what he is obviously arguing for is that the spiral galaxy arms are electric currents.


Anyone who would say "a magnetic field.....is responsible for the movement of gas" is someone putting the cart in front of the horse. The magnetic field that surrounds a conductor in which electrons are flowing is a result of the flow of electrons, not vice versa. Magnetic flux fields don't just show up for no reason, they appear at lightspeed upon the the movement of an electron.

Based on what we know about Electricity & Magnetism, charged particles in motion is what creates magnetic lines of force which lag the movement of such charged particles by the difference of the speed of light.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2015
Hi JeanTate. :)

Observing this thread/discussion, but have kept out of it deliberately until now.

Question: If one can accept observations of gravitational phenomena as indirectly indicating presence/processes of DM, then surely one can accept observations of electro-magnetical phenomena as indirectly indicating presence/processes of variety of en-masse Electronic/Protonic//Other 'charges' motions across/along magnetic fields/lines? If not why not?

Ie, indirect evidence via remote observations is good enough for DM arguments, so indirect evidence via remote observations should be good enough for Current arguments. If one rejects the validity of the latter, then one must reject the validity of the former. Yes?

I'll be interested to see what transpires after this observation/question from me. Back through here tomorrow if I find the time. That's all Thanks. Cheers. :)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
Re: "Opinion. What Beck et al. are "arguing for" is exactly what is stated in the paper"

I can't name particular radio astronomers, but it's become very clear through private communications that some radio astronomers are very clear on what the line is that they cannot cross when discussing cosmic plasmas, and they will walk right up to it without trying to cross it. To be clear, there are no radio astronomers who are actually aligned with the Thunderbolts Group, so all of these researchers came to this opinion completely of their own accord, simply by following observations and suspicions.

Something to keep in mind is that at these wavelengths, there is much possibility for confusion with traditional algorithmic processing of the signals, because all of the signals overlap. At times, a careful hand analysis is required to produce meaningful data.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
There is something more than a little bit disingenuous at hand when a mob of closed-minded people are attacking an idea, and yet simultaneously suggesting that the idea is already accepted. There has been a debate over how to model cosmic plasmas for many decades now between AJ and IEEE, and there is a particular type of knowledge which pertains to the debate itself which is important to have when discussing the debate.

Many of the comments I see here do the readers no service when it comes to characterizing this debate. I've been working for a number of years now on the design and creation of a controversy platform where people go to learn about all of the controversies. It is too much of a struggle for most to simply understand what the controversy is, and I have to say that the comments here are not helping people to figure that out.

I generally believe that this is intended.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2015
Opinion. What Beck et al. are "arguing for" is exactly what is stated in the paper

This bears repeating. Scientific papers are not journalistic articles. In journalism the reader is free to interpret what he wants.

With scientific papers it's like this: Anything that is in there was done. Anything that is not in there was NOT done and CANNOT be inferred (because if it could validly be inferred then the author would have put it in there. At the very least in the 'discussion' or 'further work' section)
Anyone who infers stuff that isn't in there should take a step back and ask themselves why the author didn't. (Hint: It's not because the author is stupid)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
Re: "Anyone who infers stuff that isn't in there should take a step back and ask themselves why the author didn't. (Hint: It's not because the author is stupid)"

So, you seem to want to imply that there is no politics inherent to this debate. But, we can see the politics right here on this forum. If you have a problem with people inferring an electric current when a magnetic field is observed, perhaps you should be pitching your case to the people who make the public high school textbooks to remove all connections between the two.

I fully understand the motivation for ignoring controversies in the graduate programs; if the students were aware that they were learning a subject that is in contention, or possibly at risk of being overtaken by a competing idea, we'd see lower numbers for these graduate programs.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
The real problem arises when the scientific community starts to become more authoritarian in their claims, as has occurred since the 80's. When scientists are no longer just producing data and theory, but are also actively seeking to influence public policy based upon their ad hoc models, then the public should rightly ask who the critics of these ideas are, and those critics should be given a chance to make their case. The public's inherent interest in scientific controversies will predictably rise in accordance with this trend in the scientific community to dictate public policy on the basis of ad hoc models.

If the scientific community wants to retain full control over the conversation associated with these models, they'd be wise to keep the ad hoc models out of the voting booths. But, nobody believes this will happen at this point, so the public is forced to learn the nitty gritty of ALL of the debates.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
because it was only a half century ago that the astronomers were claiming that radio waves from space were either a hoax or a mistake

Hmm ... Scheuer&Ryle, blah, blah,(there are hundreds of papers like this, in the 1950s


"Radio waves were first detected from space in the 1930s but few scientists took the discovery seriously."
http://www.atnf.c...dex.html

As usual, you wish to ignore actual history and context offered.
Let's consider an exercise, it's 50+ years from now and Plasma Cosmology is the dominate view. Two guys discussing related issues, one guy mentions the historical context of the debate and disavowal that exists now toward PC. The other, a science acolyte, denies this and points to the peer reviewed material that is currently available re PC as "proof" his claims are false. Who in fact is "telling the truth" and who is obfuscating history? The history of attitudes toward change shouldn't be ignored.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2015
It is you who wishes to revise the history, to ignore the dynamics of human behavior and institutional bias and how it affects scientific progress. It's great that Ryle did what he did (although I could care a rat's ass that the queen touched his shoulder with a blade or whatever knighting process), but just think about how much further along we'd have been if the discovery had been "taken seriously" and not denied for 2 decades by astronomers.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2015
Your grasp on the discussion is tenuous at best, Karl Jansky (electrical engineer) discovered radio waves from space in 1931, which was widely reported, and published his first paper on it in 1933. Grote Reber (another EE) was the only person who studied "radio astronomy" until after WWII.
http://www.plasma...eber.pdf
Astronomers dismissed their existence because it didn't fit in their cosmology. Thankfully along came Alfven (again, EE) and he explained synchrotron radiation to the astronomers and how it was relevant to their studies. Only then did astronomers deem it a necessary field of study.
We are at another crossroads, Alfven and many other EE's have tried to explain to astronomers for well over 4 decades now that magnetic fields are not magical, they require electricity, just as Maxwell described in his seminal works, and without it there are no magnetic fields. You should be asking why astros choose to continually ignore experts on EM theory.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2015
@JeanTate, I'm gonna try to be a bit less hostile in the discussion, but your suggestion that there hasn't been a single paper published by anyone within the Thunderbolts community is a bit absurd when, as cantdrive has demonstrated, there are in fact several. Many of which have been published in the IEEE, and others which have been published independently. I'll definitely agree that they have not been consolidated into a single framework, or hosted within a single, easily accessible forum, but to say that they simply don't exist at all just isn't true.

Likewise, you seem to be insistent that academic science, and the peer-review system are devoid of any internal or external politics, and that isn't the case. Science is not a bastion of unbiased, perfectly objective saints. It's not a pit of dogmatic, blindly corrupt villains either, but to say that vested interests, personal politics, and group think are not a large issue within science is to ignore its entire history.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jun 21, 2015
However, I presented evidence - of the objective, independently verifiable kind (i.e. published papers, in journals such as MNRAS) - which shows you opinion to be bunkum


Ok then JT:

In atomic transitions, electrons do not "accelerate", and they emit light at discrete frequencies
...... Is this line of yours "bunkum"?

Or is this next line of mine "bunkum"?

.....electrons absolutely do accelerate when they change orbital positions, it's the photon they emit that does not accelerate.


everything is about what happens when momentum of charged particles change, their energy levels also change, slow them down & they give up photons, the frequency of energy they give up depends on the rate of change of acceleration when slowing down
.......more "bunkum JT? Or don't you know?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2015
So you say. Without any evidence, of the historical kind in this case.

However, I presented evidence - of the objective, independently verifiable kind (i.e. published papers, in journals such as MNRAS) - which shows you opinion to be bunkum

The lack of any papers is evidence - of the objective, independently verifiable kind - which shows for two decades after the discovery there were 2 individuals working on it. Neither of which was an astronomer.

Repeat: What - exactly - is the discovery which *Ryle* made, that was not "taken seriously" and "denied for 2 decades"? Please, be very specific


The context of the link was referring to ******Jansky****** and his discovery of cosmic radio source, which as that source (Australia National Telescope Facility Outreach Program) claims was not "taken seriously" by scientists. And the dearth of papers over the next 20+ years is the evidence - of the objective, independently verifiable kind - of the lack of "seriousness".
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2015
it seems to me that you're invoking a classical explanation, rather than a quantum one. Could you clarify please?


Ok, so it seems you want to invoke Wave-Particle duality to get yourself off the hook here? Look, it is well understood how chemical bonding occurs, it doesn't matter if you want to call it a Wave or a Particle, it can occur no faster speed of light. But first, Kinetic Energy (mechanical movement) must be initiated, this is followed by release of Electro-magnetism (an emitted photon) when the Wave or Particle transitions to a lower energy level.

If you want to ascribe "wave" features to an electron, it still must be moved, the same as a "particle", or you don't get photon emission. Photon emission occurs only because the Wave-Particle transitioned to a lower energy state, but the Wave-Particle must first have undergone mechanical movement to cause this to occur, that movement is: 1/2mv*2. Or do you think the Wave feature of QM is not subject to KE?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2015
5th May, 1933- Karl G. Jansky's detection of radio waves from the center of the Milky Way announced in a front page article in the New York Times.

26-27 Decmber, 1953- American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Boston includes review papers on radio astronomy.

http://www.nrao.e...ne.shtml

Why for two decades did nearly the entire scientific establishment ignore these facts? Read a little deeper, it was radio research from WWII which accelerated the process immensely, as the equipment that eventually aided the research was handed back to the private sector. If it wasn't for the war, who know how much longer it would have been ignored.

carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2015
Indeed. But do any of those use freely available *quantitative* radio astronomy data?


I'll be perfectly honest and say that no, I'm not certain if any do. I'll take that question to the Thunderbolts forum, and continue to look for them independently. Now, please answer in kind with honesty: do you genuinely think a paper like this would ever be published in a periodical like The Astrophysical Journal? And if not, would you ever pick it up and read it yourself?

Beyond that, the main question I want to ask is this: if there are Birkeland currents moving through space, exactly like the kind driving our aurora [Although for some bizarre reason, they are never referred to this. Any reason why?], then why is it unreasonable to presume that the same currents are generating these magnetic fields? Astrophysicists suggest that the fields are frozen in, electrical engineers like Donald Scott say they are not. Where do you stand, and why?
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jun 21, 2015
For that matter, let's take dark energy. I have found in the last month three papers, one of which is sixty pages long, describing how red-shift is a mechanical phenomena when light interacts with hot plasma. Likewise, in a recent study by E Lerner, the Tolman test for surface brightness of stars demonstrated the Universe is not expanding, but in fact obeys Euclidean geometry for a static universe. And then there was the recent discovery of Andromeda's massive plasma halo.

So why then should I, as a layman and amateur scientist pursuing his own model, assume that the Universe is expanding and invoke dark energy/chameleon particles, rather than assume that the redshift of quasars is a plasma phenomena, and that we've grossly underestimated the distribution and amount of plasma in the Universe?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
"The same study also shows how gas can be funneled inward toward the galaxy's center"

"To maintain the high rate of star production requires a steady inflow of gas from the galaxy's outer regions into its center"

then why is it unreasonable to presume that the same currents are generating these magnetic fields? Astrophysicists suggest that the fields are frozen in, electrical engineers like Donald Scott say they are not. Where do you stand, and why?


Carlo- when one reads at face value what I've placed above in quotes from the article, it can only be surmised these Astro-physicists assume fields cannot possibly be "frozen in" place. They only appear to the casual observer to be "frozen" simply because of the continuous stream of charged particles moving through long distances of the outer environs to the nucleus of the galaxy. The mechanical movement of charged particles always results in the generation of magnetic fields, exactly the same when electrons move in a wire.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2015
Ok, so it seems you want to invoke Wave-Particle duality to get yourself off the hook here?


Sorry, I really have no idea what you're talking about.


What? The Wave -Particle duality?
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
No Benni, all the stuff in your comment, that I summarized by "..." Suggestion: as PO comments are incredibly limiting, and as it seems what you write needs much more than the limitations of 1k characters, why not take this discussion to somewhere where those limitations do not apply? (I have a recommendation, if you're interested).


.........and I imagine your "recommendation" goes something like:

"When you get your model developed, you can write it up, and get it published. Then we can discuss it."

Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (5) Jun 21, 2015
@Benni

re: Wave Particle Duality vs QED
I believe, can't speak for him, that JeanTate was asking you to speak in terms of quantum mechanics where changing electron states can be predicted with 10 significant figures and requires accounting for virtual particle pairs which can move faster than light. Changing electron states is not a case of a particle or wave mechanically moving. While not directly observed and measured it is required by QM to act as a wave a probability in which virtual particle pair of positrons and electrons pop into existence, annihilate and have measurable effect on the charge distribution of the atom. Your simplistic mechanical view of the atom is outdated and shows how far out of your depth you are here. Until IEEE and other electrical engineers really start looking at Quantum Electro Dynamics or Quantum Mechanics in general their opinions on cosmology are worth as much as a botanists. I recommend L.Krauss "A Universe from Nothing" for easy reading.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2015
Yes. But what I think is surely totally irrelevant, isn't it? I mean, if there are no papers - let alone any submitted to ApJ - what's the point of such a hypothetical?


The point of the question is to gauge the degree of integrity you think is upheld within the peer-review system. That you think they would ever publish a paper like this is interesting, but frankly, I disagree. And to suggest that anything, by any "core" member of the TB team like Thornhill or Scott, would be published by ApJ feels completely disingenuous. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think it would ever happen.

Really? You might want to read some papers on the Earth's magnetosphere etc.
Care to point me the direction towards any? I have yet to see the term "Birkeland current" in any scientific media outlet to date, with possible the *very* rare except. They are always called "magnetic flux ropes." I don't think I've even seen "field-aligned currents."
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (2) Jun 21, 2015
Let's start with "Birkeland currents": precise, usable definition please; in particular, why not call such things by the more generic - and more useful - name, field-aligned currents? (continued)


"A Birkeland current usually refers to the electric currents in a planet's ionosphere that follows magnetic field lines (ie field-aligned currents), and sometimes used to described any field-aligned in a space .[3] They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure. They are also known as field-aligned currents, magnetic ropes and magnetic cables"

I don't separate his name from the currents because to do so is disingenuous, and removes that currents from any historical context connecting them to plasma cosmology, the EU model, and Birkeland's personal struggle against Chapman and the entire astrophysical community. To be frank, it's shady as hell
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jun 21, 2015
Of course it's not unreasonable to presume. However, you don't write papers based merely on a presumption ... you have to have data, analyze it, and write up your findings.

I'm not suggesting that this doesn't need to be done. I am saying that the presence of these magnetic fields is a perfectly reasonable and strong indication of the presence of electric fields. Someone earlier asked why it was poor science, in your opinion, to make this logical assumption when the astrophysical community does the exact same thing with dark matter, by inferring its entire existence through gravitational effects. You didn't answer the question, so I'd ask you to do so now, please.

I don't "stand" anywhere. And my "stance" is utterly irrelevant, right?


Of course your stance is not irrelevant. You're a member of the scientific community, an intelligent free-thinker, and someone whom I consider a peer. In what way is your position irrelevant? Mine is not irrelevant, neither is yours.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (4) Jun 21, 2015
How about starting with references? It's hard to know what you're talking about if you don't provide them


"UV surface brightness of galaxies from the local Universe to z ~ 5"
"Investigation of the Mechanism of Spectral Emission and Redshifts of Atomic Line in Laser-Induced Plasmas"
"Intrinsic Plasma Redshifts Now Reproduced in the Laboratory"
"Redshift of Photons Penetrating a Hot Plasma"

When you get your model developed, you can write it up, and get it published. Then we can discuss it.


My apologies, but you've just answered my previous question: unless a paper is peer-review, you will not give it consideration. In my opinion, this is equivalent to a scientist "asking permission" to explore an idea, or to engage in controversial/alternative ideas. And that is the exact kind of "dogmatic" group-think people in this thread have been talking about. So please, answer explicitly, would you read a non peer-reviewed paper?
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2015
Hi Carlo,

I just finished reading through the PDF of "Redshift of Photons Penetrating a Hot Plasma". Some questions:
If fusion happens on the corona where are the byproduct gamma-rays and why does photosphere spectroscopy reflect LESS Helium than expected?
Where's the temperature data to show that the corona gets to 100,000,000K, 2 orders of magnitude higher than observed?
If the sun is systematically plasma red-shifted how does one account for coronal holes which are quite common?
If not even most of the sun is red-shifted from plasma dynamics how would you account for the consistent universal redshift? Hot Sparse Plasma everywhere?!
How would you account for plasma density that would be needed to redshift the spectra of exoplanets like HD 209458b's?

The paper attempts to supplant current theories of stellar mechanics and BB Cosmology without supporting extraordinary evidence or new, better explanatory mechanics.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2015
Thankfully along came Alfven (again, EE) and he explained synchrotron radiation to the astronomers and how it was relevant to their studies

He did? And you have evidence - of the objective, independently verifiable kind (i.e. published papers, in journals such as MNRAS) - to demonstrate this - in your personal opinion - historical fact? Let's see it!
No problem, it is clear that Alfven was the first to suggest synchrotron radiation from astronomical sources.
http://journals.a...v.78.616
you and HA were talking about two completely different time periods. You: 1933-1953; HA: 1965-2015.
Semantics, HA's comments were well understood by myself knowing a bit about history. A "half a century ago" can be taken with a bit of ambiguity instead of the absolute time period you wrote. Besides, observations/experiment can go on for decades and still be largely ignored. One need look no further than Birkeland/Chapman aurora theories.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
cont.

The kicker for me is:
How do you explain the Sun's hydrostatic equilibrium with fusion at the surface?

Maybe you can propose some kind of unseen energy expanding outward? We'll call it Bright Energy so as not to get it confused with the scientifically sound Dark Energy.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2015
Once it was over, there is an explosion of papers.

I described how the war increased interest in an earlier post, but I could hardly agree that 3-4 papers per year is hardly an "explosion". And quite frankly, the presence of the papers in no way "proves" your point just as the presence over PC papers currently available doesn't prove there currently is no debate about these issues we are discussing. And here is a article about Jan Hendrik Oort which further supports the contention there was a debate about cosmological radio waves.
"he was among the first to notice the great significance of Grote Reber's concise announcement of galactic radio emission in 1940 and 1942; he realized the importance of the studying the physical properties in the ISM in the Galaxy in a time WHEN MOST ASTRONOMERS saw it only as an impediment to the study of galactic structure..."

http://adsabs.har...05..681B

carlo_piantini
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2015
Hi Carlo...
If fusion happens on the corona where are the byproduct gamma-rays and why does photosphere spectroscopy reflect LESS Helium than expected?...


I don't have answers to the questions you've asked, but I find them extremely interesting and I'll keep them in mind for the future. It's as simple as that for me. If you'd like to consider that as a point for the presently accepted model, then do so. I'm not debating whether your model has a lack of evidence to make it valid. I'm here suggesting to everyone that there is another model that I find promising because I think it relies more heavily on laboratory evidence.

My interest in all of these papers is nothing more than their demonstration of red-shift in a lab. I want to use that for my own model.. I don't think dark energy is scientifically sound: it violates the conservation of energy, suggests that empty space is somehow expanding, and now invokes chameleon particles, which change mass wherever they are.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2015
Again, what I think is irrelevant...Fine, we disagree. And our opinions count for, what, exactly?


I'm sorry, but this seems to be a recurring suggestion of yours. Do you genuinely have such consideration for your own thoughts or opinions? I mean why are you here engaging in a debate when you're suggesting that your opinion doesn't bare any weight whatsoever? I'm genuinely confused by how little you value your own ideas.

Check out papers on the Earth's magnetosphere, using CLUSTER data, etc...


I'll do that! A specific paper to begin with would be very appreciated.

who cares about what you think about historical contexts? Science is chock-a-block full of examples like this, as is ordinary English


Are you explicitly suggesting that it's a safe, intelligent course of action to separate the historical, social and political context of scientific debate from a discussion on scientific theory? Could you please explain why, but I very strongly disagree.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (3) Jun 22, 2015
On the Brynjolfsson one: do you feel you understand the theoretical mechanism sufficiently well to evaluate its validity? On this and the Ashmore one: same question, but on the observational/experimental data each uses?


No, but that shouldn't be a deterrent from reading them, keeping them in my mind for further analysis as my knowledge/experience continues to grow, and to weigh what I do understand against the present argument for something like dark matter.

On the Chen one: what relevance do you think this has for astronomy/astrophysics?


The demonstration of red-shift as a light-plasma phenomena in the lab, to me, is a very strong indication that universal acceleration is not happening, and that human error has resulted in our underestimation of how much hot plasma is distribution throughout the universe.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
@Benni

.... changing electron states can be predicted with 10 significant figures and requires accounting (fudging) for virtual particle pairs which can move faster than light
....contrived gobblygook. FTL & VIRTUAL are simply catch words for "best guess".

Changing electron states is not a case of a particle or wave mechanically moving
So, 1/2mv*2 is the new VIRTUAL?

Your simplistic mechanical view of the atom is outdated and shows how far out of your depth you are here
Your restatement that 1/2mv*2 isn't real, we just imagine it so you can have your "virtual realities".
of FTL etc.

Until IEEE and other electrical engineers really start looking at Quantum Electro Dynamics or Quantum Mechanics in general their opinions on cosmology are worth as much as a botanists
1/2mv*2 works everytime we perform mathematical tasks on planet Earth, without it magnetic fields can never be generated. Magnetic fields do not precede mechanical movement.

Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
@JT Thanks for the follow up!
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2015
@Benni

re:
1/2mv^2


Yes, that is fine for working at a macroscopic level in practical day to day applications where just enough precision is all that's needed. In much the same way as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was "replaced" by General Relativity which can do all the things Newton's law can and more, so too is it with Quantum Mechanics which does everything Classical Mechanics does but can also explain Fine Structure and with 10 significant figures worth of precision. The catch is that Classical Mechanics and Newtonian Gravitation are often "good enough" and can be done in mental math.

contrived gobblygook


Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it less factual. I'm noticing a theme here where you only understand things at a practical "walking down the street" level. Do you understand/accept the Uncertainty Principle? Roughly, that you cannot simultaneously know certain complementary properties to arbitrary precision?
cont.
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2015
@Enthusiastic Fool: Out of curiosity, are you a theoretical physicist or an engineer? I only ask because, as a student of the history of engineering and an amateur engineer myself, I do not consider QM genuine mechanics. If you'll indulge me...

1888 - All Matter Tends to Rotation - Leonidas le Cenci Hamilton:
"It does not follow however, that because a theory may be mathematical, it must therefore be mechanical; because mathematics is the one science which may be applied not only to mechanical conceptions, but...to metaphysical abstractions. Armed with our formulae alone, we must not imagine that we may penetrate the secrets of Nature. Mathematical formulae alone therefore, a valueless in establishing the truth of physical theory."
carlo_piantini
1 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2015
Cont.

2015 - Quantum Theory Needs No Interpretation - Fuchs and Peres:
"Contrary to those desires, quantum theory does not describe physical reality. What it does
is provide an algorithm for computing probabilities for the macroscopic events ("detector clicks") that are the consequences of our experimental interventions. This strict definition of the scope of quantum theory is the only interpretation ever needed, whether by experimenters or theorists."

QM is an extremely well-tested, verifiable heuristic that allows us to circumvent our current experimental limitations. It is also not mechanics. It is non-deterministic, relies on mathematical formalism, and is devoid of any relation to a physical model. QE, wave-particle duality, and superposition are not actual physical phenomena that happen in the real, substantial world.
Enthusiastic Fool
5 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2015
@Benni
cont.
If you accept the Uncertainty Principle then I've got some fantastic news for you. You are already on the road to accepting Quantum Mechanics. If not I'm afraid your condition may be terminal.

Part of the beauty of the Universe is that theoretically you can be wrong but mathematically still adequately describe something. This is how the Newton's Law of Gravitation is incorrect but will yield adequate results in many situations. Quantum Mechanics produces more accurate results but also explains them.

"Perhaps a thing is simple if you can describe it fully in several different ways without immediately knowing that you are describing the same thing." ~Feynman
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2015
who are these people?...evidence?
@Jean
just so you know... I am one of them - what they call dogmatic is actually me requesting legitimate sources, not pseudoscience

and yes, as you can see by previous arguments (see: http://phys.org/n...day.html or many other comment posts) I use evidence

I like to substantiate my claims with evidence to reputable peer reviewed journals, not to pseudoscience links

and since being hit with both a virus AND someone trying to hack/phish me after using the thunder site, then i refuse to use it any more. i don't care if it has a former paper published in a journal... if i can't get a link to a reputable site, i don't open it because of the history of certain posters here

there have been SOME posters using papers pulled or retracted for various reasons, or link cleverly "edited" papers which are NOT original or valid

if it is not original source i can validate - i ignore it as pseudoscience now
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2015
JT & EF,

You are both way, way, far away from the focus of the measured observations of this paper. The observation of the detected magnetic fields of this galaxy have nothing to do with your quibbling Quantum Theories of the origin(s) of these newly discovered magnetic fields. In fact either of you have spent just about zilch time referring to them.

These measured magnetic fields are newly discovered MACROSCOPIC effects measured in a manner by which we can only evaluate MACROSCOPIC events at millions of light years distance, but you two think you've discovered a way to reduce the entirety of this newly discovered event & subject it to the philosophy of Quantum Theory, yeah, you've got figured out what you only learned about a few days ago. I'm one very impressed Nuclear/Electrical Engineer knowing you two are already way ahead of the ones who did the actual spectroscopy evaluations & you're not even privy to them.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2015
Care to point me the direction towards any? I have yet to see the term "Birkeland current" in any scientific media outlet to date, with possible the *very* rare except. They are always called "magnetic flux ropes." I don't think I've even seen "field-aligned currents."

Carlo,
Try a simple google of "birkland current"...

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.