Strong magnetic fields discovered in majority of stars

January 4, 2016, University of Sydney
Stars like the Sun puff up and become red giants towards the end of theirlives. The red giants ('old' Suns) of the same mass as the Sun do not showstrong magnetic fields in their interior, but for stars slightly moremassive, up to 60 percent host strong magnetic fields. Credit: University of Sydney

Strong magnetic fields discovered in majority of stars—Finding to impact understanding of stellar evolution

An international group of astronomers led by the University of Sydney has discovered are common in , not rare as previously thought, which will dramatically impact our understanding of how stars evolve.

Using data from NASA's Kepler mission, the team found that stars only slightly more massive than the Sun have internal magnetic fields up to 10 million times that of the Earth, with important implications for evolution and the ultimate fate of stars.

"This is tremendously exciting, and totally unexpected," said lead researcher, astrophysicist Associate Professor Dennis Stello from the University of Sydney.

"Because only 5-0 percent of stars were previously thought to host strong magnetic fields, current models of how stars evolve lack magnetic fields as a fundamental ingredient," Associate Professor Stello said. "Such fields have simply been regarded insignificant for our general understanding of .

"Our result clearly shows this assumption needs to be revisited."

The findings are published today in the journal Nature.

The magnetic fields seen in red giants are left over from an earlier phase when the stellar cores hosted turbulent convection, creating a 'magnetic dynamo'. Magnetic fields are only present in stars more massive than the Sun because core convection only occurs in those stars. Credit: University of Sydney

The research is based on previous work led by the Californian Institute of Technology (Caltech) and including Associate Professor Stello, which found that measurements of stellar oscillations, or , inside stars could be used to infer the presence of strong magnetic fields.

This latest research used that result to look at a large number of evolved versions of our Sun observed by Kepler. More than 700 of these so-called red giants were found to show the signature of strong magnetic fields, with some of the oscillations suppressed by the force of the fields.

"Because our sample is so big we have been able to dig deeper into the analysis and can conclude that strong magnetic fields are very common among stars that have masses of about 1.5-2.0 times that of the Sun," Associate Professor Stello explained.

"In the past we could only measure what happens on the surfaces of stars, with the results interpreted as showing magnetic fields were rare."

Using a new technique called asteroseismology, which can 'pierce through the surface' of a star, astronomers can now see the presence of a very strong near the stellar core, which hosts the central engine of the star's nuclear burning. This is significant because magnetic fields can alter the physical processes that take place in the core, including internal rotation rates, which affects how stars grow old.

Most stars like the Sun oscillate continuously because of sound waves bouncing back-and-forth inside them. "Their interior is essentially ringing like a bell." Associate Professor Stello said. "And like a bell, or a musical instrument, the sound they produce can reveal their physical properties."

The team measured tiny brightness variations of stars caused by the ringing sound and found certain oscillation frequencies were missing in 60 percent of the stars because they were suppressed by strong magnetic fields in the stellar cores.

The results will enable scientists to test more directly theories of how magnetic fields form and evolve—a process known as magnetic dynamos—inside stars. This could potentially lead to a better general understanding of magnetic dynamos, including the dynamo controlling the Sun's 22-year magnetic cycle, which is known to affect communication systems and cloud cover on Earth.

"Now it is time for the theoreticians to investigate why these magnetic fields are so common," Associate Professor Stello concluded.

Explore further: Astronomers peer inside stars, finding giant magnets

More information: Dennis Stello et al. A prevalence of dynamo-generated magnetic fields in the cores of intermediate-mass stars, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/nature16171

Related Stories

Mysterious, massive, magnetic stars

September 11, 2015

A Canadian PhD student has discovered a unique object – two massive stars with magnetic fields in a binary system. Matt Shultz of Queen's University, Ontario, Canada found the system – Epsilon Lupi – and will publish ...

Magnetic fields on solar-type stars

December 12, 2014

The Sun rotates slowly, about once every 24 days at its equator although the hot gas at every latitude rotates at a slightly different rate. Rotation helps to drive the mechanisms that power stellar magnetic fields, and in ...

Twisted magnetic fields give new insights on star formation

December 21, 2015

Using new images that show unprecedented detail, scientists have found that material rotating around a very young protostar probably has dragged in and twisted magnetic fields from the larger area surrounding the star. The ...

Recommended for you

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

NASA team first to demonstrate X-ray navigation in space

January 11, 2018

In a technology first, a team of NASA engineers has demonstrated fully autonomous X-ray navigation in space—a capability that could revolutionize NASA's ability in the future to pilot robotic spacecraft to the far reaches ...

68 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

HannesAlfven
3.1 / 5 (22) Jan 04, 2016
If you observe the approach, the assumption is always that electricity and magnetism are not present -- except where magnetic fields are needed to patch together a failing theory. It is a repeat of the observation decades ago of radio waves from space by radio ENGINEERS -- initially assumed to be a hoax or mistake by astronomers of the day. Those astronomers had no need for radio waves, so the observation was outright rejected.

Apparently not having learned any meaningful lesson from that episode -- PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO TELL THE STORY -- the scientists of today will refuse to engage the theory-making process with these fundamental forces so long as they can, and will continue to favor more metaphysical and hypothetical forces as the primary actors, as electricity and magnetism tend to be disruptive to textbook theory when applied at the largest scales.
leDendrite
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
maybe soon we'll realize that black holes are not holes but rather massive magnetic objects, like i've been saying...
Protoplasmix
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
...the scientists of today will [continue] to engage the theory-making process with these fundamental forces so long as they can, and will continue to favor more [mathematical] and [theoretical] forces as the primary actors, as electricity and magnetism tend to be [equally theoretical and also included in] textbook theory [especially] when [discovered to be non-negligible] at the largest scales.
--fixed that for you.
Steelwolf
3.7 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2016
So, not only is our central BH a massive and high gravitational item, it has been shown to also possess a massive magnetic field itself, Jets, as recently found, from Galactic Cores, are highly magnetic in nature, now we have news that Most Stars are magnetic as well, so, considering the, Now Proven, magnetic nature of most of the mass we can observe...would this not have the very effects that the Dark Energy and Mass folks have been looking for?

I am not saying that there is not such, I question the ratios of 'Visible Matter and Energy' vs Dark as they are presently given seeing as how they all rely on a very outdated number of assumptions, ones that have been broken one by one, and this is one of the final nails in the coffin.

This is a highly electro-magnetic nature Universe, and the same forces that act stongest at micro scales do the same at macro scales and super macro scales as well.
my2cts
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 04, 2016
So, not only is our central BH a massive and high gravitational item, it has been shown to also possess a massive magnetic field itself, Jets, as recently found, from Galactic Cores, are highly magnetic in nature, now we have news that Most Stars are magnetic as well, so, considering the, Now Proven, magnetic nature of most of the mass we can observe...would this not have the very effects that the Dark Energy and Mass folks have been looking for?
...
This is a highly electro-magnetic nature Universe, and the same forces that act stongest at micro scales do the same at macro scales and super macro scales as well.


All of these forces are incredibly much too weak to contribute to galactic rotation.
Also, magnetic dipole fields fall off like r^-3 and are anisotropic.
This paper http://arxiv.org/...56v1.pdf says that the shape of Sgr A* is not aligned with the galactic disk. Why is it rotationally symmetric then?
Your ideas disagree with all of astrophysics.
Phys1
2.9 / 5 (15) Jan 04, 2016
If you observe the approach, the assumption is always that electricity and magnetism are not present -- except where magnetic fields are needed to patch together a failing theory.

Without the EU framing, you say that EM fields are assumed to absent or small unless observation shows otherwise. That is the correct approach.
What is your problem again ?
bschott
3.5 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
So your ideas disagree with all of astrophysics.


LMFAO!!!!!

it has been shown to also possess a massive magnetic field itself, Jets, as recently found, from Galactic Cores, are highly magnetic in nature, now we have news that Most Stars are magnetic as well, so, considering the, Now Proven, magnetic nature of most of the mass we can observe...

This is a highly electro-magnetic nature Universe, and the same forces that act stongest at micro scales do the same at macro scales and super macro scales as well.


The above are observations nocents, not "ideas".

So you just stated that observations disagree with all of astrophysics.

Happy new year and please, don't stop bein you.

my2cts
2.8 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2016
So your ideas disagree with all of astrophysics.


LMFAO!!!!!

poor schlemiel.
your 5 exclamation mark are really convincing
my2cts
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
@bullshit
where were you? locked away? a ban?
bschott
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
your 5 exclamation mark are really convincing


One for each tear of laughter at what you thought was a smart thing to say. I love you man.

@bullshit
where were you? locked away? a ban?


Yes, every year I get locked up at Christmas and banned from the computer and my overseers laugh at how much I chomp at the bit to get back here and read all the smart things you say.

Please tell us more from the small change school of magnetism and please, don't hesitate to keep those personal insights coming.

My day is just incomplete without your....insight.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 04, 2016
Just when I think it does not get any more stupid, you come along to show me I am wrong.
You are a treasure trove of logical fallacies and misconceptions on just about any subject.

Do you get locked up at Christmas because of lack of staff ?
bluehigh
3.9 / 5 (11) Jan 04, 2016
@bschott

The new year has just started and already we're having fun. I'll set aside a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue for us to share one day. Have a great 2016.
bschott
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 04, 2016
you come along to show me I am wrong.


If it wasn't me we could just use observations of reality as compared with your posts when you try to speak scientifically. But I do enjoy it so I'll keep the job.

So far we have a statement from you that all light is redshifted, stars are immune to magnetic influence and now you appear to be confused about the difference between observations and ideas....keep em coming!

@bschott

The new year has just started and already we're having fun. I'll set aside a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue for us to share one day. Have a great 2016.


Cheers Blue!
wduckss
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 04, 2016
All stars rotate (without exception) and they too have no (and can not have) the same density and composition of matter (the center is thicker) inside the volume.

Why should be questionable that every star has a magnetic field?

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.
Solon
4 / 5 (2) Jan 04, 2016
Will this asteroseismology be able to tell us more about the nearest star to our own?
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.3 / 5 (18) Jan 04, 2016
The article doesn't represent the Nature article correctly.

When I saw this: "Strong magnetic fields discovered in majority of stars ... certain oscillation frequencies were missing in 60 percent of the stars", yet the article refers to "only present in stars more massive than the Sun" and the Sun is more massive than 95 % of stars, a warning flag was raised.

The Nature abstract explains: "a sample of 3,600 red giant stars". Such a sample is biased, since low mass stars haven't gone red giant yet. The title should have been "Strong magnetic fields discovered in majority of massive stars", and the 60 % figure seems to be the "[strong fields occur] at least 50 per cent for intermediate-mass stars" of the abstract.

@Solon: Yes, but the stars that have been observed has mostly been by the Kepler craft. You should be able to find out if the Proxima C has been observed this way.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 04, 2016
I forgot to sum up: The new result is that ~ 2 % of stars have strong magnetic fields. The E&M lovers can do with that what they want.

@Steelwolf: "they all rely on a very outdated number of assumptions, ones that have been broken one by one".

Just stop. You are worse than the article!

Anyone can check with an encyclopedia that any constraints (not assumptions, science doesn't assume but crosschecks everything at every test*) are up to date, and that LCDM cosmology has been tested to ever higher precision the last few years.

If you want to have a science discussion or ask about the science, start with the science and go from there.

* A subject for another discussion. But even loose constraints stand and fall with their hypothesis/observation under a hypothesis test.

The 'assumption' epithet was invented by theologists in the 19th century I believe, in order to strawman science.
Solon
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2016
@Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
@Solon: "Yes, but the stars that have been observed has mostly been by the Kepler craft. You should be able to find out if the Proxima C has been observed this way."

I don't see anything. I'm surprised at how little is known about the nearest stars.

Alpha Centauri C Magnetic Field
Polar Magnetic Field Strength (Gauss): Unknown
Sunspot Magnetic Field Strengh (Gauss): Unknown
Prominence Magnetic Field Strength (Gauss): Unknown
Chromospheric Plages Magnetic Field Strength (Gauss): Unknown

my2cts
2.5 / 5 (16) Jan 04, 2016
@bschott

The new year has just started and already we're having fun. I'll set aside a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue for us to share one day. Have a great 2016.

Whiskey, that explains why talking to either of you is like talking to a brick.
You number of braincells has fallen below some critical limit.
my2cts
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 04, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 04, 2016
wduckss imagines or makes up a straw man
Why should be questionable that every star has a magnetic field?
In my recollection there has never been a claim by any credible AstroPhysicist or even keen amateur astronomers to suggest a star wouldn't have a magnetic field, whether is 'strong' or 'weak' is a qualitative comparative matter.

It is evident to all those with basic training in Physics that charge motion results in electromagnetic fields. Heat is a poweful driver of motion in stars as much as in Earth's core.

If you imagine its been questionable ever, then please provide evidence to support your claim ?

wduckss being facile claims
Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.
No - such universality fails and so very often too, see comment by my2cts !

wduckss you confuse causal issues re angular momentum & basic magnetics, in any case please prove your claim it was ever "questionable" that stars had magnetic fields ?
cantdrive85
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?

So you are claiming that stars are tennis balls? Okie dokey.
cantdrive85
3.8 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016

in any case please prove your claim it was ever "questionable" that stars had magnetic fields ?


From the article...

"This is tremendously exciting, and totally unexpected," said lead researcher, astrophysicist Associate Professor Dennis Stello from the University of Sydney.
"Because only 5-0 percent of stars were previously thought to host strong magnetic fields, current models of how stars evolve lack magnetic fields as a fundamental ingredient," Associate Professor Stello said. "Such fields have simply been regarded insignificant for our general understanding of stellar evolution.
"Our result clearly shows this assumption needs to be revisited."

Clearly, there are many, many assumptions that need be revisited. And your reading "skills" need revisiting as well.
wduckss
4.4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?


A tennis ball = solid object (there is no friction between the layers), the star = the fluid (layers having different speeds).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
All stars rotate (without exception) ...[/q
Data source? What direction?]
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?

There's nothing IN the center of a tennis ball except air. They're hollow.

A tennis ball = solid object (there is no friction between the layers), the star = the fluid (layers having different speeds).

Tennis balls have one layer. There's nothing IN the center of a tennis ball except air. They're hollow. Bad analogy/metaphor.
You guys don't get out much, do you...
Whydening Gyre
4.9 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
I forgot to sum up: The new result is that ~ 2 % of stars have strong magnetic fields.

But that's not saying the other 98% don't have a magnetic field - maybe just not all so strong, right?
bluehigh
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 05, 2016
Do magnetic fields have Mass?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 05, 2016
Do magnetic fields have Mass?

Ya wouldn't think so, but - a possible line of enquiry...?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?

So you are claiming that stars are tennis balls? Okie dokey.

We already know that you are an idiot. Why insist?
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016

Rotation =dynamo = magnetic field.

If I rotate a tennis ball, there will be no magnetic field.
Can you explain that ?


A tennis ball = solid object (there is no friction between the layers), the star = the fluid (layers having different speeds).

What you need to get a magnetic field is that different charge types rotate at different speed.
I miss that in your argument.
Here's an authoritative paper on the subject:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php
my2cts
2.8 / 5 (13) Jan 05, 2016

in any case please prove your claim it was ever "questionable" that stars had magnetic fields ?


From the article...

"This is tremendously exciting, and totally unexpected," said lead researcher, astrophysicist Associate Professor Dennis Stello from the University of Sydney.
"Because only 5-0 percent of stars were previously thought to host strong magnetic fields, current models of how stars evolve lack magnetic fields as a fundamental ingredient," Associate Professor Stello said. "Such fields have simply been regarded insignificant for our general understanding of stellar evolution.
"Our result clearly shows this assumption needs to be revisited."

Clearly, there are many, many assumptions that need be revisited. And your reading "skills" need revisiting as well.

Read:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php
clearly showing that astrophysicists as opposed to journalists, are FULLY AWARE.
Caps because you are an idiot.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (17) Jan 05, 2016
Whydening Gyre offered
But that's not saying the other 98% don't have a magnetic field - maybe just not all so strong, right?
Indeed thats the prevailing position :-)

ie. All have intense heat source, logically follows there's (convective) motion & as its high temps then its (dense) plasma ie ions/electron 'fluid' & as there is huge mass disparity between protons & electrons despite their absolute charge equals you *must* have magnetic fields of some sort as a straightforward frankly self-evident consequence

Straightforward Physics that the wduckss types misread re oddly confuse lack of discussion (within their narrow circle) as if AstroPhysicists rejection of them having EM fields.

IMHE, never seen it rejected ever but, opposite when I joined in discussions at UWA astronomy social events late 1970's it was expected EM fields *must* occur

Big problem all the Electric Universe crowd Fail dismally to address is EM poles sum locally but, gravitation doesn't !
Mike_Massen
1.9 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2016
Wow bluehigh asked an actual good question - yippee (good day with ASX:ISX ?)
Do magnetic fields have Mass?
There's an open topic on this question on quora, link below.
Just found it, thought it appropriate to offer a commentary & raise question re possible experimental design, perhaps for future International Space Station (ISS) mission but, I think it must have been addressed before, maybe by a Stanford lecturer in Relativity Eg. L.Susskind
https://www.quora...ave-mass

Useful to get grips with prevailing view Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) rely on photons as force carriers, its proven photons are deflected by strong gravitational fields. Similarly in Special Relativity, if relative motion of the EMF is high then is apparent mass will be high so even if local gravitational field weren't that strong there'd be increasing interaction as speed approaches c.

Expect covered re LHC proton path as there's EMF interaction, especially @ 40MHz
gculpex
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2016
... and the Sun is more massive than 95 % of stars...


Really? Our sun is quite small in the average size in the milky way galaxy.

www.youtube.com/w...eh1BH34Q

You are missing a whole universe of stars!!!!!
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
Really? Our sun is quite small in the average size in the milky way galaxy.

Not really. The vast majority of stars is less massive than our sun. Yes, there are bigger ones out there (some of them much bigger), but by numbers they are exceedingly rare.
http://astronomy....1708.htm
(see chapter "Mass and other stellar properties")
bluehigh
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
The simplistic answer would be magnetic fields are not massive because magnetism is a force and not an energy source. However, there's some evidence that the prevailing paradigm might be flawed. We (should) know that 'space' is not empty and that Photons interact with various mediums. Whether it's at a QM level such as Delbruck scattering or simply an unknown classical phenomenon, I wonder what impact on the EM environment near a star, an intense magnetic field may induce. Surely no effect on an EM wave/particle like a photon? Gravity does that by bending space, right?

It's 4:00 am on a cold night ...

bluehigh
5 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
And, of course to avoid antagonising the heavily invested, perhaps the 'Photon' disolves into a virtual electron/positron pair then moves affected by the magnetic lines of force. The recombination then radiates (as a photon) with a directional change.
Hmmm .. Lensing with No gravity required. I must be dreaming.
gculpex
3 / 5 (3) Jan 05, 2016
Really? Our sun is quite small in the average size in the milky way galaxy.

Not really. The vast majority of stars is less massive than our sun. Yes, there are bigger ones out there (some of them much bigger), but by numbers they are exceedingly rare.
http://astronomy....1708.htm
(see chapter "Mass and other stellar properties")


I'm just glad our sun isn't any bigger!
wduckss
4.1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2016
my2cts

What you need to get a magnetic field is that different charge types rotate at different speed.
I miss that in your argument.
Here's an authoritative paper on the subject:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php


Article from the link does not cover this topic. He watched a complex area and trying to give solutions.

The magnetic field give friction layers of different structures of matter (it is not necessary to have a core of iron).
Working above all as a result of rotation. Dinamo means rotation, magnetic field also. Orientation north-south orientation confirms this. Cyclones to the poles are only inevitability of rotation. This is the essence along which they go side events.
my2cts
3.2 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2016
my2cts

What you need to get a magnetic field is that different charge types rotate at different speed.
I miss that in your argument.
Here's an authoritative paper on the subject:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php


Article from the link does not cover this topic. He watched a complex area and trying to give solutions.

That is too easy and superficial. The paper represents the state-of-the-art on the rotation and magnetic effects in the Sun. It does not cover the heavier stars discussed in the article above.
cantdrive85
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2016
What you need to get a magnetic field is that different charge types rotate at different speed.
I miss that in your argument.
Here's an authoritative paper on the subject:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php

Ooh! Authoritative...But not a paper, just a webpage with some sciencey jargon which is little more than pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

First off, there is not enough convection to either transfer the heat or create the magnetic fields.
http://arxiv.org/...3173.pdf

The convection is 100 times weaker than the theories require, basically throws your "authoritative" paper in to the dustbin it belongs.
wduckss
3.3 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2016
Ooh! Authoritative...But not a paper, just a webpage with some sciencey jargon which is little more than pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

First off, there is not enough convection to either transfer the heat or create the magnetic fields.
http://arxiv.org/...3173.pdf

The convection is 100 times weaker than the theories require, basically throws your "authoritative" paper in to the dustbin it belongs..


A classic example of what you get when we neglect the basic facts.
The star (above 5,000 ° K) can not be seen as a wheel. Here begins the reverse process, the speed of the center are large, the lowest on the surface. Proof, cyclones in the semi moving a lot faster than the surface layer. Speed decreases from the center (from pole to pole) towards the equator.
Stars very slow rotation (Betelgeuse) may be closer to the system, star cluster, but not the wheel.
my2cts
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2016
What you need to get a magnetic field is that different charge types rotate at different speed.
I miss that in your argument.
Here's an authoritative paper on the subject:
http://www.hao.uc...ound.php


The convection is 100 times weaker than the theories require, basically throws your "authoritative" paper in to the dustbin it belongs.

The difference between you and them is that you are an anonymous ignoramus with a fixed idea and they are the high altitude observatory. They are observing the sun the whole time while you are staring only at your navel.
xradiix
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2016
So, not only is our central BH a massive and high gravitational item, it has been shown to also possess a massive magnetic field itself, Jets, as recently found, from Galactic Cores, are highly magnetic in nature, now we have news that Most Stars are magnetic as well, so, considering the, Now Proven, magnetic nature of most of the mass we can observe...would this not have the very effects that the Dark Energy and Mass folks have been looking for?


This is a highly electro-magnetic nature Universe, and the same forces that act stongest at micro scales do the same at macro scales and super macro scales as well.


I love it because all this time the dogmatic relativity clan has had their chance to keep an open mind and they tried but they are being enlightened each and every day; even though they spite us for what we have tried to help them understand they cannot accept the fact or keep an open mind on the universes possible differing functions. They've been deceived
xradiix
3.5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2016
Do magnetic fields have Mass?

Ya wouldn't think so, but - a possible line of enquiry...?


Imagine how insane that would drive the relativity proselytes if we discovered that they would be mad.

Its awesome that this new research has helped us delve deep into our profundities and question if the theory of relativity and their dogmatic followers really do hold a candle to the every growing validity of the Electric Universe
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
xradiix claimed
I love it because all this time the dogmatic relativity clan has had their chance to keep an open mind and they tried but they are being enlightened each and every day;
Beg Pardon ? you imply relativity is dogmatic despite Evidence, please clarify in context of relativity:-

1. What you specifically mean by "dogmatic" ?
2. How they are "being enlightened each & every.." as if to imply told its wrong ?

xradiix went on with another ambit but, vague claim[q/].. even though they spite us for what we have tried to help them understand they cannot accept the fact or keep an open mind on the universes possible differing functions. They've been deceived Please clarify:-

3. What have "we tried to help them understand" ?
4. What "possible differing functions" - any Evidence re *any* quantification ?
5. Meaning by "deceived" ?

please understand there is immense evidence for Special & General Relativity but, your comment is mere vague claim, details ?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
xradiix went on emotionally with more oddball claims

Imagine how insane that would drive the relativity proselytes if we discovered that they would be mad
Whats to imagine re insanity, please clarify:-

6. Equations shown to be valid are somehow 'insane' directly or what they imply ?
7. Evidence is insane or the measurement, instrumentation, maths which fit into equations ?

xradiix says
Its awesome that this new research has helped us delve deep into our profundities and question if the theory of relativity and their dogmatic followers really do hold a candle to the every growing validity of the Electric Universe (EU)
Please see cantdrive85's most recent posts and my direct questions squarely to address his claims over the preceding year.

Here's one, if EU has validity then why has their never been *any* quantification of EU's vague claim Electromagnetic forces directly affect solar planetary orbits ?

Lets hope you aren't hypnotized, try Physics ?
xradiix
4 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
3. What have "we tried to help them understand" ?


We have tried many in vain to help people following the dogmatic doctrine of the theory of relativity and many of those who subscribe to the dark matter hypothesis; that there is most probably other significant cruxes that must be investigated more seriously than keeping a narrow minded view and basing their experiments and hypothesis off one standard set of models and physics.

We must be arduous in our minds and not to ignorant as to ascribe and to commit ourselves to hastily and savagely to one state of thought then maybe we can have all the great minds take heed to alternative theorems other than the one they so vehemently subscribe to.

4. What "possible differing functions" - any Evidence re *any* quantification ?


https://

www.youtube.

com/
watch?v=
uGGewRoSV20
xradiix
3 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2016
Please see cantdrive85's most recent posts and my direct questions squarely to address his claims over the preceding year.

Here's one, if EU has validity then why has their never been *any* quantification of EU's vague claim Electromagnetic forces directly affect solar planetary orbits ?

Lets hope you aren't hypnotized, try Physics ?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp


Personally don't know whether Electric universe theorem could affect the orbits of the planets but if magnetic fields are found to have gravity and the interaction of photons and the stellar wind with polarized stellar bodies is more heavily researched we shall find more answers i'm not well versed enough to engage in too much dialogue with a person of your esteem on this matter

antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (8) Jan 07, 2016
Imagine how insane that would drive the relativity proselytes if we discovered that they would be mad.

Why would it? If someone came along and supplanted relativity that would be very interesting. It would not invalidate the stuff that relativity works for in the least 8just like relativity didn't invalidate Newton where it is applicable)

However, this is something you always forget in your rants: To show something wrong isn't enough. We KNOW that there are issues with Relativity and QM (notably that the two don't fit seamlessly). Everyone knows this - and has done soe for 50 years. You're not telling anyone anything new (and if you think this is actually a novel insight then you're not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed).

What you need to do is show up something better. I.e. something that passes ALL the experimental tests that relativity has (which are quite a few) and THEN some.
my2cts
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2016
Do magnetic fields have Mass?

Ya wouldn't think so, but - a possible line of enquiry...?


Imagine how insane that would drive the relativity proselytes if we discovered that they would be mad.

Its awesome that this new research has helped us delve deep into our profundities and question if the theory of relativity and their dogmatic followers really do hold a candle to the every growing validity of the Electric Universe

I estimate the probability that you will ever contribute anything to science equal to exactly zero. You do have the skills to recognise what makes sense from what does not.
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2016
Do magnetic fields have Mass?

Ya wouldn't think so, but - a possible line of enquiry...?


Imagine how insane that would drive the relativity proselytes if we discovered that they would be mad.

Why? It has nothing to do with relativity except that magnetism ALSO falls under the relativity umbrella.

Its awesome that this new research has helped us delve deep into our profundities and question if the theory of relativity and their dogmatic followers really do hold a candle to the every growing validity of the Electric Universe

Magnetic Universe Before electric. Electricity is a primary byproduct of the magnetic acceleration of massive particles. You need to stop getting ahead of yourself - it just trips you up...
bluehigh
5 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2016
Electricity is a primary byproduct of the magnetic acceleration of massive particles.


Wow. It's a bit early in the afternoon for a drink but if I had one I'm sure it would have slipped from my hand. Thats a bold statement WG. I like it.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2016
Electricity is a primary byproduct of the magnetic acceleration of massive particles.


Wow. It's a bit early in the afternoon for a drink but if I had one I'm sure it would have slipped from my hand. Thats a bold statement WG. I like it.

How does magnetic acceleration of massive particle explain the 12 volts electricity of a common lead sulphate battery ?
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2016
how does magnetic acceleration of massive particle explain the 12 volts electricity of a common lead sulphate battery ?

2 different animals. Battery is storage medium. How is that 12 volts generated, in the first place?
(Hint) - earths mag field in acceleration...
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2016
Whydening Gyre - feeling sorry for bluehigh asked
2 different animals. Battery is storage medium. How is that 12 volts generated, in the first place?
6 x 2v cells in series, each cell is electrochemical, foundation is:-
https://en.wikipe...ki/Redox

Which has the link
https://en.wikipe...otential

& relevant to
https://en.wikipe..._battery

Whydening Gyre joking with us to mess up bluehigh's head suggested
(Hint) - earths mag field in acceleration...
Naughty of you there, now you'll get bluehigh to run around with a high strength rare earth magnet waving it around his car battery trying to get its flaccid state of charge raised up enough so he can launch off - maybe whilst looking up at a full moon too.

Funny thing is, the electrochemical potentials in a typical lead acid battery do respond like an inefficient diode under AC magnetic fields...

Now now Whydening Gyre, enough fun with bluehigh for today ;-)
RealityCheck
3 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2016
Hi Mike_Massen. Happy new year. I hope our floods/winds/bushfires etc not impacting on you where you live. In any case, stay safe. :)

You ridicule bluehigh based on WG's statement:
Electricity is a primary byproduct of the magnetic acceleration of massive particles.
Mate, if you indulge in personal ridicule, at least make sure you have the right end of the stick!

If you read what WG said, it ACTUALLY made fun of those claiming that magnetism can exist a-priori (ie, without electricity/moving charges). It did NOT make fun of bluehigh.

So you made a mountain-of-misunderstanding from a molehill-of-sarcasm about electricity being caused by magnetism rather than the other way round!

Consider: 'free' charges (electrons/protons/positrons etc) can be created/accelerated by E-M radiation/heating ionization and then further influenced/accelerate by both gravitational/magnetic fields in 'plasmic' feedback dynamics loops/flows/structures etc.

Eschew cheap shots, mate. :)

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (10) Jan 12, 2016
If you read what WG said, it ACTUALLY made fun of those claiming that magnetism can exist a-priori (ie, without electricity/moving charges). It did NOT make fun of bluehigh.

So you made a mountain-of-misunderstanding from a molehill-of-sarcasm about electricity being caused by magnetism rather than the other way round!

Well, SOMEbody has me wrong...
I do believe electricity is a product of multiple magnetic fields interacting with basic matter particulates(strings?). Electricity then acts (along WITH the magnetics) as a kind of feedback mechanism...
Apologies if I'm not expressing that exactly right...(still a WIP) I need some feedback so I can refine what I am trying to say...
Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 13, 2016
RealityCheck claims
You ridicule bluehigh based on WG's statement
Electricity is a primary byproduct of the magnetic acceleration of massive particles
Mate, if you indulge in personal ridicule, at least make sure you have the right end of the stick!
No. You betray some intrinsic prejudice against me reading way too much into my friendly post directed at Whydening Gyre who appeared was playing with bluehigh, thats it !

RealityCheck, you'd do well to be advised sensible to not attack people without shred of foundation, well except for bluehigh who insists on poor knee jerk insults. Far more useful to offer links as I do & clarify at least & wholesome to educate when obviously there are immense Physics misunderstandings

In that respect, RealityCheck, YOU need to get a grip re Maxwell, Gauss etc its clear that, for (practical) electricity (as such eg 12v lead) primarily via electrons
https://en.wikipe..._current

Non e- not yet practical
bluehigh
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 13, 2016
I would expect, given past interactions, that WG would not need to resort to subtle sarcasm to engage me in critical thinking or if required help me chill when faced with difficult debate.

I enjoy WG's contribution to these comments and welcome his enquiring mind.

* looks at the poker chips and wonders if it's wise to play another hand with these cards *

Mike_Massen
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 13, 2016
bluehigh claimed
I would expect, given past interactions, that WG would not need to resort to subtle sarcasm to engage me in critical thinking...
Beg Pardon ?
Give us your best possible top 3 examples of "critical thinking" & the rationale leading up to it ;-)

I commend Whydening Gyre in having the courage to speak up, ask honest questions & Not resort to profanity unlike the many who fail dismally at "critical thinking", so hats off to Whydening Gyre & please keep the questions coming as obviously bluehigh needs the many interleaved layers of practice in the beginnings of approaching "critical thinking"

Here yah go bluehigh, take a look at how its organised maturely:-
https://en.wikipe...c_method
&
https://en.wikipe...thinking

Give us an example of your particular "critical thinking" bluehigh in application to critique re Physics on dialectic evident on these forums where people show courage to sneak behind anonymity :P
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Jan 13, 2016
I would expect, given past interactions, that WG would not need to resort to subtle sarcasm to engage me in critical thinking or if required help me chill when faced with difficult debate.

I enjoy WG's contribution to these comments and welcome his enquiring mind.

* looks at the poker chips and wonders if it's wise to play another hand with these cards *


Play it... Just don't bet the whole stack...:-)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2016
Hi Mike-Massen. :)
You betray some intrinsic prejudice against me reading way too much into my friendly post directed at Whydening Gyre who appeared was playing with bluehigh, thats it !
I assure you I hold no intrinsic/extrinsic/any other type prejudices against anyone. I only observe/comment based on my reading of the reality/person in any particular instance/exchange.

If your comment/characterization re bluehigh was intended as 'light banter' not 'cheap shot', then I can only apologize sincerely for having 'misread' your 'tone/intent' in that instance. :)

As for the various possible permutations of charge-impetus sources/feedback 'arrangements' in nature which create/accelerate electro-magnetic features/flows, my example was intended to be IN ADDITION to your own example to WG; it wasn't intended to exclude it.

Re WG's 'banter' with bluehigh, it may also be easily misunderstood by third parties; that's what I mistakenly thought you did. My mistake!

Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2016
Hi Whyde. :)
I do believe electricity is a product of multiple magnetic fields interacting with basic matter particulates(strings?). Electricity then acts (along WITH the magnetics) as a kind of feedback mechanism...
Apologies if I'm not expressing that exactly right...(still a WIP) I need some feedback so I can refine what I am trying to say...
Best wishes for quick progress in your WIP on this issue, mate. As for the requested feedback, here are some fundamental questions/aspects which you may need to determine objectively before 'founding' your own WIP on re higher level phenomena/conclusions re 'primacy/association' of/between E and/or M:

- Both SR/GR and QM(QED/QCD etc) theories are mute re (among other things) ORIGINS/mechanisms of 'charge' and 'gravity'; they merely describe/predict/explain 'observed' BEHAVIOR via mathematical constructs NOT designed/capable to/of identifying/explaining the fundamental a-priori physical entities/processes involved.

cont...
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 13, 2016
...cont

- a-priori manifestation of 'charge'/'gravity' is rooted in the spontaneous arising/interactions/subsiding of 'matter' loops which inevitably form in underlying/fundamental 'energy-space' which universe ultimately consists of at 'lowest' a-priori level; in and from which all 'higher-level entities/phenomena 'evolve' and devolve' according to rules of chaos/self-similar physical dynamics/interactions at the many levels of 'structure/flow' simplicity/complexity allowed by the NATURAL RELATIVITIES intrinsic to the properties of the energy-space and the mathematically 'stable' configurations which arise/evolve/devolve as the phenomena 'cycle' through unceasing formations of stable-unstable-stable... configurational forms having their own attendant 'temporal/spatial' durations/motions/evolutionary trajectories.

So, energy-space 'matter loops 'induce' static/dynamic fundamental CHARGE/GRAVITY relativities/motions; which THEN further produce 'magnetism' etc.

Cheers. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
Thanks for the lengthy reply, RC. But, all your blah/blah/blah's make it incomprehensible to read and absorb for me...
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (8) Jan 14, 2016
RealityCheck says
If your comment/characterization re bluehigh was intended as 'light banter' not 'cheap shot', then I can only apologize sincerely for having 'misread' your 'tone/intent' in that instance. :)
Apology accepted.

To try to pin down rest of your post & other 2 in quick succession, can you offer some maths but, if not point out where Maxwell, Gauss prior to Einstein can be re-interpretated specifically.

ie Maxwell, Gauss used very well re magnetic, electric fields & in conjunction to Einstein could not have developed his Field equations without Gauss and his theorems are much easier to understand re fluids as analogy to fields ie From the observable reality of fluid flows as testable extrapolating to electric/magnetic fields with further extrapolation by Einstein to gravitation. Leonard Susskind has some good lectures @ Standford.

ie
Elegance & symmetry of Maxwell is straightforward/proven & likely essential to any ToE

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.