Protostar blazes bright, reshaping its stellar nursery

March 15, 2017
Inside the Cats's Paw Nebula as seen in an infrared image from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope (left), ALMA discovered that an infant star is undergoing an intense growth spurt, shining nearly 100 brighter than before and reshaping its stellar nursery (right). Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO), T. Hunter; C. Brogan, B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF); GLIMPSE, NASA/JPL-Caltech

A massive protostar, deeply nestled in its dust-filled stellar nursery, recently roared to life, shining nearly 100 times brighter than before. This outburst, apparently triggered by an avalanche of star-forming gas crashing onto the surface of the star, supports the theory that young stars can undergo intense growth spurts that reshape their surroundings.

Astronomers made this discovery by comparing new observations from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile with earlier observations from the Submillimeter Array (SMA) in Hawaii.

"We were amazingly fortunate to detect this spectacular transformation of a young, massive star," said Todd Hunter, an astronomer at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) in Charlottesville, Va., and lead author on a paper published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. "By studying a dense star-forming cloud with both ALMA and the SMA, we could see that something dramatic had taken place, completely changing a over a surprisingly short period of time."

In 2008, before the era of ALMA, Hunter and his colleagues used the SMA to observe a small but active portion of the Cat's Paw Nebula (also known as NGC 6334), a star-forming complex located about 5,500 light-years from Earth in the direction of the southern constellation Scorpius. This nebula is similar in many respects to its more northern cousin, the Orion Nebula, which is also brimming with , star clusters, and dense cores of gas that are on the verge of becoming stars. The Cat's Paw Nebula, however, is forming stars at a faster rate.

The initial SMA observations of this portion of the nebula, dubbed NGC 6334I, revealed what appeared to be a typical protocluster: a dense cloud of dust and gas harboring several still-growing stars.

ALMA image of the glowing dust inside NGC 6334I, a protocluster containing an infant star that is undergoing an intense growth spurt, likely triggered by an avalanche of gas falling onto its surface. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); C. Brogan, B. Saxton (NRAO/AUI/NSF)

Young stars form in these tightly packed regions when pockets of gas become so dense that they begin to collapse under their own gravity. Over time, disks of dust and gas form around these nascent stars and funnel material onto their surfaces helping them grow.

This process, however, may not be entirely slow and steady. Astronomers now believe that young stars can also experience spectacular growth spurts, periods when they rapidly acquire mass by gorging on star-forming gas.

The new ALMA observations of this region, taken in 2015 and 2016, reveal that dramatic changes occurred toward a portion of the protocluster called NGC 6334I-MM1 after the original SMA observations. This region is now about four times brighter at millimeter wavelengths, meaning that the central protostar is nearly 100 times more luminous than before.

The astronomers speculate that leading up to this outburst, an uncommonly large clump of material was drawn into the star's accretion disk, creating a logjam of dust and gas. Once enough material accumulated, the logjam burst, releasing an avalanche of gas onto the growing star.

This extreme accretion event greatly increased the star's luminosity, heating its surrounding dust. It's this hot, glowing dust that the astronomers observed with ALMA. Though similar events have been observed in infrared light, this is the first time that such an event has been identified at millimeter wavelengths.

Comparing observations by two different millimeter-wavelength telescopes, ALMA and the SMA, astronomers noted a massive outburst in a star-forming cloud. Because the ALMA images are more sensitive and show finer detail, it was possible to use them to simulate what the SMA could have seen in 2015 and 2016. By subtracting the earlier SMA images from the simulated images, astronomers could see that a significant change had taken placein MM1 while the other three millimeter sources (MM2, MM3, and MM4) are unchanged. Credit: ALMA (ESO/NAOJ/NRAO); SMA, Harvard/Smithsonian CfA

To ensure that the observed changes were not the result of differences in the telescopes or simply a data-processing error, Hunter and his colleagues used the ALMA data as a model to accurately simulate what the SMA—with its more modest capabilities—would have seen if it conducted similar observations in 2015 and 2016. By digitally subtracting the actual 2008 SMA images from the simulated images, the astronomers confirmed that there was indeed a significant and consistent change to one member of the protocluster.

"Once we made sure we were comparing the two sets of observations on an even playing field, we knew that we were witnessing a very special time in the growth of a star," said Crystal Brogan, also with the NRAO and co-author on the paper.

Further confirmation of this event came from complementary data taken by the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory in South Africa. This single-dish observatory was monitoring the radio signals from masers in the same region. Masers are the naturally occurring cosmic radio equivalent of lasers. They are powered by a variety of energetic processes, including outbursts from rapidly growing stars.

The data from the Hartebeesthoek observatory reveal an abrupt and dramatic spike in maser emission from this region in early 2015, only a few months before the first ALMA observation. Such a spike is precisely what astronomers would expect to see if there were a protostar undergoing a major growth spurt.

"These observations add evidence to the theory that star formation is punctuated by a sequence of dynamic events that build up a star, rather than a smooth continuous growth," concluded Hunter. "It also tells us that it is important to monitor young stars at radio and millimeter wavelengths, because these wavelengths allow us to peer into the youngest, most deeply embedded star-forming regions. Catching such events at the earliest stage may reveal new phenomena of the star-formation process."

Explore further: VLA, ALMA team up to give first look at birthplaces of most current stars

More information: "An extraordinary outburst in the massive protostellar system NGC6334I-MM1: Quadrupling of the millimeter continuum," by T.R. Hunter et al., published in the Astrophysical Journal Letters doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa5d0e

Related Stories

Protostar growth spurts

November 4, 2015

Astronomers using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) have discovered an adolescent protostar that is undergoing a rapid-fire succession of growth spurts. Evidence for this fitful youth is seen in a pair ...

ALMA reveals sun in new light

January 17, 2017

New images from the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) reveal stunning details of our Sun, including the dark, contorted center of an evolving sunspot that is nearly twice the diameter of the Earth.

VLA shows earliest stages of planet formation

March 17, 2016

New images of a young star made with the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA) reveal what scientists think may be the very earliest stages in the formation of planets. The scientists used the VLA to see unprecedented detail ...

Recommended for you

Orbital mayhem around a red dwarf

December 18, 2017

In the collective imagination, planets of a solar system all circle in the equatorial plane of their star. The star also spins, and its spin axis is aligned with the spin axes of the planetary orbits, giving the impression ...

Mars and Earth may not have been early neighbors

December 18, 2017

A study published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters posits that Mars formed in what today is the Asteroid Belt, roughly one and a half times as far from the sun as its current position, before migrating to ...

62 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RNP
5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
Not often we see actual observations of star formation with time resolution. An open access copy of the paper can be found here: https://arxiv.org...8637.pdf
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
It's fascinating how the reporting consistently fails to acknowledge the surprising filamentary geometry of these nurseries. Textbook drawings seem to show stars forming in isolation. I've not seen any of those older diagrams which show stars forming together in systems along filaments. Yet, observations increasingly vindicate it.

The entire geometry of the situation has subtly shifted, but I've not seen any of the science journalists point this out -- much less wonder aloud what sort of oversight might create this significant gap between expectations and observations.

The reporting seems to build upon a widespread lack of public understanding of the role of filaments in laboratory plasma physics. This creates an unusual situation where we have two competing histories emerging, and the experts seem unaware of it.

The History of the Birkeland Current
https://plus.goog...3iHyjnwz
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
It's fascinating how the reporting consistently fails to acknowledge
@hannes/reeve the eu cult sock
1- an article is not the same thing as a study

2- did you determine relevance before posting? (survey says: nope!)

3- please show on the open access paper linked by RNP all these "filaments" that are demosntrated, shown and measured in this study - it should be fairly easily done as the free open access means you can see the evidence they collected just like we can

4- continuing to flood the site with irrelevant OT bullsh*t pseudoscience isn't the way to demonstrate anything other than your cult-like determination

the only way to promote science in science, per the scientific method, is to actually have evidence that is later validated

considering your oft-repeated claims of "evidence" then by all means, get published and STFU until it's validated

thanks
SlartiBartfast
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2017
Inside the Cats's Paw Nebula...


I'll never understand how people name these things. No matter how long I stare, I still don't see a cat's paw.

Oh, and Reeve, just stop already. Why not go peddle your BS on YouTube? There's no shortage of gullible idiots there.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
I'll never understand how people name these things. No matter how long I stare, I still don't see a cat's paw
@Slarti
step 1 - drink far too many pan-galactic gargle blasters
step 2 - look again
LMFAO

but seriously

open this pic: https://upload.wi...ulae.jpg

in the top right corner of the pic, look for the 4 bright spots
those are set up similar to a cat paw track in the sand

now open this pic and flip it upside down: http://rlv.zcache..._400.jpg

i hope that helps

If not.... drink more whiskey and try again till it does!
LOL
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2017
Re: "please show on the open access paper linked by RNP all these "filaments" that are demosntrated, shown and measured in this study"

The filament connecting all four objects is easily discernible from the left-most images within the article (the new 2015/2016 ALMA observations).

But, we already knew that this has been the pattern from the Herschel observations ...

http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

"... ESA's Herschel space observatory has been a true game changer. Probing the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that ranges from the far-infrared to sub-millimetre wavelengths, it has collected unprecedented data during its three and a half years of observing. One of the key aspects that emerged from these observations is the presence of a filamentary network nearly everywhere in our Galaxy's interstellar medium. The picture that is emerging is that these structures are closely linked to the formation of stars ..."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2017
(cont'd)

"... 'The greatest surprise was the ubiquity of filaments in these nearby clouds and their intimate connection with star formation,' ...

The astronomers are still trying to understand the details of the star formation processes taking place in these clouds, aided by the abundance and variety of data collected with Herschel ...

most filaments are dotted with compact cores, suggesting that stars are readily taking shape in these dense 'fibres' of the interstellar medium ...

A study of the most spectacular example of this phenomenon, the Polaris Flare, indicates that filaments must somehow precede the onset of star formation ..."

The textbooks did not predict ANY of this, and the mistake is glossed over as though it's unimportant.

To the contrary, it's certainly one of the most important observations of our century -- WHETHER OR NOT IT VALIDATES THE TEXTBOOKS.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2017
It seems that the authors have noted the filamentary connection as well. From the paper discussed by this press release ...

"The positions of these four subcomponents form an elongated symmetric pattern relative to MM1B ... This pattern, combined with their simultaneous brightening, suggests that all of the subcomponents may not be independent protostars as originally interpreted by Brogan et al. (2016)."

Seems that the former authors are making the same mistake as people here.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2017
@hannes/reeve eu cult pseudoscience idiots
The filament connecting all four objects is easily discernible from the left-most images within the article (the new 2015/2016 ALMA observations)
1- if only there was some means of learning what those pics mean...
OH wait! page 3 of the PDF! wow...

2- it looks like there is a potential background cloud to me, but that is based solely upon looking at the pics...

3- the rest of your BS posts are called Gish-gallop and are your interpretation of reality

as you can't actually show where, in the study, those "filaments" are demonstrated etc, then that means, by definition, you failed

this is what is meant by "looks like a duck" science - just because an airplane and a mallard both have wings doesn't mean they're both aluminum, avian or man-made objects

seems that the eu cult and pseudoscience religious idiots in general are making the same mistakes you always make

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2017
Captain, you challenged ...

"3- please show on the open access paper linked by RNP all these "filaments" that are demosntrated, shown and measured in this study - it should be fairly easily done as the free open access means you can see the evidence they collected just like we can"

The authors plainly state at the top of page 4 ...

"The positions of these four subcomponents form an elongated symmetric pattern relative to MM1B ... This pattern, combined with their simultaneous brightening, suggests that all of the subcomponents may not be independent protostars as originally interpreted by Brogan et al. (2016)."
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult socks
The authors plainly state at the top of page 4
1- it took you 4 posts to make that point

2- if it is mentioned in the study, and you finally managed to find something that you believe spells out the "filamentary" nature of the plasma, then it is absolutely not a matter of "the reporting consistently fails to acknowledge the surprising filamentary geometry" now is it?
Nope

ya can't have it both ways

obviously the issue isn't with the science, but rather your interpretations of science - and that is painfully clear above

so i will repeat something else

-continuing to flood the site with irrelevant OT bullsh*t pseudoscience isn't the way to demonstrate anything other than your cult-like determination

the only way to promote science in science, per the scientific method, is to actually have evidence that is later validated
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "2- if it is mentioned in the study, and you finally managed to find something that you believe spells out the 'filamentary' nature of the plasma, then it is absolutely not a matter of 'the reporting consistently fails to acknowledge the surprising filamentary geometry' now is it?"

None of the papers or reporting have come even close to the Herschel announcement from 2 years ago ...

http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

What we are seeing unfold is one of the most fascinating aspects of science:

We've got a significant geometric divergence here between theory and observations -- which implies a misunderstanding of the process for how stars form.

To see it as it is unfolding is a very special event.

We have front row seats for this; we see something that the scientific community is still working through, itself.

These are incredible learning opportunities.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
What I've tried to do here is to point people to the prior history for filaments ...

The History of the Birkeland Current
https://plus.goog...3iHyjnwz

By cultivating an understanding of BOTH sides of the debate, it becomes possible for the individual to formulate their own meaningful opinion on the future of scientific theory.

Stumpy's shtick is to convince people to rely entirely upon consensus as the source of truth -- to treat science as a body of knowledge rather than the tool for thought that it also is.

But when we do this, we blind ourselves to the psycho-sociological patterns which occur when theory is transitioning. This is a knowledge ABOUT science which is not today taught anywhere. These patterns transcend disciplinary boundaries because they derive from human behaviors.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
These moments when we see a divergence between textbook theory and observation are very special moments which the public should actively track.

That is the idea behind the Controversies of Science curriculum ...

Controversies of Science
https://plus.goog...on/Yhn4Y

This is an education which the public has never seen before, and it is the missing piece which dogs all attempts to teach CRITICAL THINKING in the sciences.

To think critically about a matter, you have to hold two opposing worldviews in your head, and actively -- over time -- compare the observations to both.

The ironic part of this is that International Baccalaureate programs (and others, I am sure) already deploy this simple technique for teaching critical thinking in high school literature classes.

All that remains is to apply it to science education. It's a straightforwardly simple step which is going to have profound consequences.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
From yesterday ...

https://medicalxp...cal.html

"Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning, according to new research published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

'Envisioning opposing views leads to a more comprehensive examination of the issue,' says psychology researcher Julia Zavala (Teachers College, Columbia University), first author on the study. 'Moreover, it impacts how people understand knowledge — constructing opposing views leads them to regard knowledge less as fact and more as information that can be scrutinized in a framework of alternatives and evidence ...'"

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"Previous research has shown that peer-to-peer discussion can help students overcome these limitations, but opportunities for these kinds of discussions are not always available ...

Results from a separate task indicated that participants in the dialogue group also showed a more sophisticated understanding of knowledge. While some of the participants in the essay group seemed to approach knowledge from an absolutist perspective - interpreting knowledge as a body of certain facts that exists apart from human judgment - none of the students in the dialogue group did so ...

'Everything possible should be done to encourage and support genuine discourse on critical issues ...'"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
From the Preface to The Golem - What You Should Know About Science

"One reviewer argues: 'it is quite easy to think of political decisions with a scientific side to them where the science is noncontroversial' and offers as an example the effect on medical institutions of the development of a predictive test for Huntington's disease. But if the science is non-controversial, why do those running the medical institutions need to understand the deep nature of the science that gave rise to the results? If the test is uncontroversially valid they can make their decisions without understanding how agreement about the test was reached. Thus, while thanking our reviewers for the many generous comments about the importance, the informativeness, and the style of the book, we stand by our claim that 'For citizens who want to take part in the democratic processes of a technological society, all the science they need to know about is controversial...'"
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
^^^^None of which will alter the fact that Velikovsky, Talbott, Thornhill et al haven't got a bleeding clue about science. None of it will make their unscientific, evidence-free nonsense any more believable. The only way of accomplishing that would be to lobotomise the whole of the scientific community. Otherwise, forget about it.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
From the Conclusion to The Golem - What You Should Know About Science

Science and the citizen

"The debate about the public understanding of science is equally confounded by confusion over method and content. What should be explained is methods of science, but what most people concerned with the issues want the public to know about is the truth about the natural world -- that is, what the powerful believe to be the truth about the natural world. The laudable reason for concern with public understanding is that scientific and technological issues figure more and more in the political process. Citizens, when they vote, need to know enough to come to some decision about whether they prefer more coal mines or more nuclear power stations, more corn or clearer rivers, more tortured animals or more healthy children, or whether these really are the choices. Perhaps there are novel solutions: wave power, organic farming, drug testing without torture ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"The 'public understanders', as we might call them, seem to think that if the person in the street knows more science -- as opposed to more about science -- they will be able to make more sensible decisions about these things.

How strange that they should think this; it ranks among the great fallacies of our age. Why? -- because PhDs and professors are found on all sides in these debates. The arguments have largely been invented in universities. Thus, all sides have expertise way beyond what can ever be hoped of the person in the street, and all sides know how to argue their case clearly and without obvious fallacies. Why such debates are unresolvable, in spite of all this expertise, is what we have tried to show in the descriptive chapters of this book. That is, we have shown that scientists at the research front cannot settle their deep disagreements through better experimentation, more knowledge, more advanced theories, or clearer thinking ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"We agree with the public understanders that the citizen needs to be informed enough to vote on technical issues, but the information needed is not about the content of science; it is about the relationship of experts to politicians, to the media, and to the rest of us. The citizen has great experience in the matter of how to cope with divided expertise -- isn't this what party politics is? What the citizen cannot do is cope with divided expertise pretending to be something else. Instead of one question -- 'Who to believe?' -- there are two questions -- 'Who to believe?' and 'Are scientists and technologists Gods or charlatans?'. The second question is what makes the whole debate so unstable ..."
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult socks
None of the papers or reporting have come even close to the Herschel announcement from 2 years ago
none of the papers tell me i'm goign to live forever either, but i'm not going to slam science and argue the point because it's irrelevant
What I've tried to do here is to point people to the prior history
why? because your cult doesn't like the wording?
just because you don't like the results, or they don't say what you want them to say how you like to hear it, doesn't mean it's wrong, bad or ignoring anything, ya moron

the rest of your posts are technically called Gish Gallop http://rationalwi...h_gallop

please note that even with your gish gallop you are just proving that:
1- you know jack about science
2- you're blatantly attempting to mislead with a false claim
3- you're arguing that because you can't have it all your way then the science must be wrong

this is technically called pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2017
@hannes/reeve eu pseudoscience cult socks
"We agree with the public understanders that the citizen needs to be informed enough to vote on technical issues, but the information needed is not about the content of science
actually, the biggest problem comes from people like you spreading pseudoscience and making the argument that because you can quote long dead people who made a claim then said claim must still be true today... but we can prove that false simply by posting any quote from the mythical story of the biblical flood plagiarized from Gilgamesh

pseudoscience is not a victimless crime: https://phys.org/...mes.html

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

'Who to believe?'
another epic failure - in science it isn't about "who" it's about the evidence, and it's validation

there never is a "who to believe" in science
ever
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "What I've tried to do here is to point people to the prior history ... why? because your cult doesn't like the wording?"

For many reasons ...

(1) Because the science journalism does not always point to the salient observations (like in this case) -- which are only understood once a person has had exposure to competing ideas.

(2) Because in this case, filaments are a core concept of the plasma laboratory and by extension, plasma-based cosmology. That they would show up in the process for star formation suggests that a historical mistake has been made in cosmology.

(3) Because mainstream astronomers have never actually sought out filaments -- yet they keep popping up.

(4) Because the astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists today do not know this history.

(5) Because we can solve the dark matter problem with these filaments.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@hannes/reeve the eu pseudoscience cult socks
For many reasons
none of the above apply to what you just did... in fact, you "literally" just posted simply because you didn't like the wording (proven above) and you don't understand the science
you can learn the science
Because the science journalism does not always point
science journalism isn't the same thing as science, which is demonstrated above as well
you made a claim about the journalism and applied the same BS claim to the science, which proved you wrong
in this case, filaments are a core concept of the plasma laboratory
so what?
again, you're arguing that because the journalism is designed to make [x] popular then the science is wrong or bad... and that is proven to be blatantly false

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult socks
mainstream astronomers have never actually sought out filaments
this is what i am talking about!
... you can't have it both ways

you PROVED they look for it: http://sci.esa.in...lky-way/

but now you want to claim they dont?
really?
Are you stupid or illiterate?
hell, that link was provided by you! do you not read your own links?
astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists today do not know this history
i already proved this false: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

you've never proven this to be true
repeating a lie doesn't make it more true mr Gish-Gallop
Because we can solve the dark matter problem with these filaments
if that were true your eu would have published a peer reviewed study proving it with evidence

but they haven't... and you can't comprehend why, can you?

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "you PROVED they look for it ... but now you want to claim they dont?"

This is not complicated, Stumpy.

The Herschel telescope was not launched to study filaments.

From their site ...

http://sci.esa.in...summary/

"The questions that Herschel will seek answers to include:
- How galaxies formed and evolved in the early Universe
- How stars form and evolve and their interrelationship with the interstellar medium"
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "Because we can solve the dark matter problem with these filaments ... if that were true your eu would have published a peer reviewed study proving it with evidence"

It's very simple:

Plasma filaments extend the electric force to distances that far exceed the reach of gravity. Consider that the Alpha Centaurus binary, the Sun's nearest neighbor stellar system, exerts only 1.5E-14 of one Earth gee on the Sun.

By contrast, in the center of the Galaxy, there are twisting plasma filaments apparently held together by a magnetic field possessing both azimuthal and poloidal components which extend for nearly 60 pc. A parsec is equal to about 3.26 light-years (31 trillion kilometres or 19 trillion miles) in length.

Given that the electric force is already many orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational, it is no wonder at all that dark matter is required to make a gravitational cosmology work.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Plasma filaments do not have to emit light in order to exist. Plasma's VI diagram -- a graph of its voltage vs current -- show that it can exist in 3 fundamentally different modes: arc, glow and dark.

That third mode -- the dark mode -- plainly suggests that when the filaments observed by Herschel and other telescopes are observed to dissipate, there can still be a filament connecting these stars.

What we observe with Herschel and these other telescopes is the sudden transient discharge which, as a consequence, leads to the formation of stars all at once along the filament.

But, the filament was likely there both before and after the star-forming event, in plasma's dark mode.

The idea that astrophysicists would just completely ignore all of these laboratory plasma physics processes when trying to understand space -- whose observable matter is 99% in the plasma state -- is a rejection of empirical science.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
It bears repeating that Anthony Peratt, one of the world's leading plasma physicists, successfully reproduced proper galactic rotation curves on government supercomputers in the early 80's.

The morphologies produced exhibit a remarkable similarity to actual spiral galaxies.

The simulation showed that gravity is apparently quite unimportant at these larger scales. On the cosmological scale, gravity is essentially a localized force.

There is no need to apply a dark matter halo around galaxies to produce proper rotation curves for galaxies when cosmic plasmas are modeled as laboratory plasmas.

The results of that simulation can be seen here:

http://www.plasma...ormation

The astrophysical community has embarked upon an endless search for dark matter -- one imagines reaching to ever-less-believable candidates over time.

What has this search produced?

Nothing.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult socks
This is not complicated...The Herschel telescope was not launched to study filaments
so? that doesn't justify your argument, it only proves your cult attachment to propaganda and cult dogma
It's very simple
so then where is your peer reviewed source material that demonstrates that plasma in space is the cause of the dark matter observations?
...
so then it isn't "simple", is it - hell, it isn't even science since you can't actually provide a study
Plasma filaments extend the electric force to distances that far exceed the reach of gravity
ok - prove it
where was the plasma force measurement that was either preceeded or measured during the LIGO experiment - after all, we have a sh*t load of material you can get those results from
...
I can wait

[crickets]

get the point yet?

just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean that it is true

science isn't about belief
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
That third mode -- the dark mode -- plainly suggests that when the filaments observed by Herschel and other telescopes are observed to dissipate, there can still be a filament connecting these stars.


Wrong. "Dark mode" is just a term for lab plasmas that were not visible to the naked eye. They will still make their presence known at other wavelengths than the visible spectrum. It will also be noticeable due to light passing through it. We don't see it. Or nowhere near enough of it.
https://briankobe...oogaloo/
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult socks cont'd
It bears repeating that
what bears repeating is this: just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean that it is true
science doesn't operate on belief
it requires evidence that is then validated to make a scientific truth

the one thing that you can't actually provide is scientific truth
hell, you can't even provide related science that proves your point! is that why you linked a pseudoscience site as a reference? if it aint source material it's CRAP - and therefore not science
end of story
The results of that simulation can be seen here
where is the validation?
where is the peer reviewed studies for that matter?

if you believe studies aren't taken into consideration while reviewing data in science then you're stupider than i thought - and that aint speculation as you're demonstrating it above, right along with your belief about scientists not looking for stuff that you yourself proved was false
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
It bears repeating that Anthony Peratt, one of the world's leading plasma physicists, successfully reproduced proper galactic rotation curves on government supercomputers in the early 80's.

The morphologies produced exhibit a remarkable similarity to actual spiral galaxies.


Wrong again. They had a vague similarity to spiral galaxies. Except for a shed load of missing material between the spirals! And they couldn't reproduce other galaxy morphologies. And there was zero evidence for the currents he needed. Which is why nobody has even bothered updating his ancient model, and why it is known as a failed hypothesis. Nobody takes it seriously.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "'Dark mode' is just a term for lab plasmas that were not visible to the naked eye. They will still make their presence known at other wavelengths than the visible spectrum. It will also be noticeable due to light passing through it. We don't see it. Or nowhere near enough of it."

You're getting ahead of the process. The first step -- before such a systematic search can occur -- is to actually raise awareness for why somebody might look.

As it stands, astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists are not taught in the science programs the significance of filamentation in laboratory plasmas. What they are instructed to do on these topics is to memorize the MHD fluids equations. Any graduate student who stops to think about any debates over these equations they are instructed to memorize will fall behind and fail to get their PhD.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
@Reeve,
Have you lost the ability to read? Read that Brian Koberlein piece again. If there was a shed load of "dark" plasma knocking around, we would notice it.

There are lots of pulsars through our Milky Way Galaxy. By observing the DM of these pulsars we can create a map of the plasma within our galaxy, so we have a really good idea of just how much "dark plasma" there actually is. It turns out there isn't nearly enough to account for the "missing mass" in our galaxy.

So dark mode plasma is an interesting idea, but it can't work as a substitute for dark matter.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "Wrong again. They had a vague similarity to spiral galaxies. Except for a shed load of missing material between the spirals!"

You seem to want to think that it matters, but the fact remains that you can place all of the matter you want into the galaxies, and the rotation curves will not be correct without adding in copious amounts of matter we do NOT see.

Re: "And they couldn't reproduce other galaxy morphologies."

Likely because he didn't try.

Re: "And there was zero evidence for the currents he needed. Which is why nobody has even bothered updating his ancient model, and why it is known as a failed hypothesis. Nobody takes it seriously."

No, the model was rejected because it gave cosmic plasmas attributes of laboratory plasmas -- namely, electromotive force (EMF).
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult socks
You're getting ahead of the process
no, he's not, and it's directly related to your post and the discussion

you say it's plasma, but plasma is visible in various wavelengths
what is the one thing we are absolutely NOT seeing WRT Dark matter?
hmm... now, a sane person would say "plasma"
but you keep harping that the DM problem is "plasma"

so that means, by definition, you're willing to overlook valid experimental proven evidence because you want to believe something

that, by definition, is called a religion - not science
astrophysicists, astronomers and cosmologists are not taught in the science programs the significance of filamentation in laboratory plasmas
blatantly false claim
repeating this lie doesn't make it more true

proof that you're a liar: http://www.pppl.gov/about

mind you, that is just one lab... we have several plasma labs in the US, from MIT to CAL-TECH
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
@idiot illiterate eu pseudoscience cult socks cont'd
Likely because he didn't try.
blatantly false claim

either prove your claim by showing all the data from the study or demonstrate where it is possible with a peer reviewed study that can be validated

that is how science works... not by saying "but he's wrong"

Making a claim without evidence is just proving my point WRT your pseudoscience and religious cult like beliefs
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Koberlein seems to think that the plasma must be fully ionized in order to behave electromagnetically ...

"At at a basic level, if you had a plasma made of fully ionized hydrogen, you would simply have a sea of freely moving electrons and protons."

His claim seems to boil down to this statement ...

"For pulsar pulses and galactic plasma, the effect is dramatic ..."

... but, this is not the same as saying that since the interstellar medium does not do the same, then dark mode plasma filaments cannot exist in interstellar space.

Whether or not Koberlein's expectations should be met deserves much more than a speculation on his blog. It's more complicated than just saying "we don't see it"; it requires that astronomers actually give the idea the benefit of the doubt sufficient to investigate it.

What has occurred instead are dismissals.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
No, the model was rejected because it gave cosmic plasmas attributes of laboratory plasmas -- namely, electromotive force


Wrong. The currents he needed were not seen. He predicted that they would be visible as synchrotron radiation, and COBE and WMAP would have seen that. They didn't. Hence why nobody takes it seriously.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.at/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Consider the problem of cosmic rays ...

https://arstechni...ng-from/

"High energy cosmic rays are something of a conundrum wrapped in an enigma. Essentially, they can't come from very far away and still have the energy they possess. To that end, cosmic rays should originate from within the Milky Way. Yet, they seem to be coming from every direction: no matter where you look in space, you have the same probability of seeing a high energy cosmic ray."

If you are shooting actual charged particles -- not photons -- through space, we seem to get the exact effect that Koberlein is looking for.

Curious that Koberlein does not mention this in his "analysis".
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
Whether or not Koberlein's expectations should be met deserves much more than a speculation on his blog. It's more complicated than just saying "we don't see it"; it requires that astronomers actually give the idea the benefit of the doubt sufficient to investigate it


Why look for something that we already know isn't there? It would be seen. It isn't. End of story. Stupid argument.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "Wrong. The currents he needed were not seen. He predicted that they would be visible as synchrotron radiation, and COBE and WMAP would have seen that. They didn't. Hence why nobody takes it seriously."

So, your argument is because ONE plasma-based model exhibited an issue, that astrophysicists are justified in their quest to evaluate 10, 20, 30 ... HOW MANY? ... dark matter models.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
If you are shooting actual charged particles -- not photons -- through space, we seem to get the exact effect that Koberlein is looking for.


Err, no we don't. What on Earth are you talking about? And what have cosmic rays got to do with anything?

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Mar 16, 2017
So, your argument is because ONE plasma-based model exhibited an issue, that astrophysicists are justified in their quest to evaluate 10, 20, 30 ... HOW MANY? ... dark matter models.


No. Because the one plasma model was very wrong, and explains nothing, and has no evidence for it whatsoever. And there would be evidence if it were as Peratt hypothesised. Which is why he likely dropped it after the COBE, & WMAP results.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Koberlein's analysis only works for photons; when you look at cosmic rays -- actual charged particles which respond to actual magnetic fields -- we actually DO see something invisible influencing them -- and SIGNIFICANTLY.

It seems that Koberlein wants to focus on the photons because it supports his case, but his readers would certainly be better informed if he also mentioned the case of the cosmic rays -- for which he has no case at all.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Re: "Which is why he likely dropped it after the COBE, & WMAP results."

The CMB was said to disprove competing cosmologies because there was no other explanation for how microwaves could be coming at us from all directions.

But, you might try asking any plasma physicist about microwaves.

They will tell you that microwave noise would be expected from a plasma beam emission.

The only question is why it arrives at us as a bell curve. That's hardly an unanswerable question -- certainly not justification to rigidly adhere ourselves to a CREATION EVENT.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
But, you might try asking any plasma physicist about microwaves.


Why should I? Just point me to a peer reviewed paper by a plasma physicist that explains the CMB as some sort of plasma woo.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Koberlein's analysis only works for photons; when you look at cosmic rays -- actual charged particles which respond to actual magnetic fields -- we actually DO see something invisible influencing them -- and SIGNIFICANTLY.


Really? Please point that out to me in the paper.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Here's your paper ...

Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)

Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure
G.H. Pollack

"... A half-century ago, breakthroughs were fairly common events that could be counted on to occur from time to time on an unpredictable but not infrequent basis. Pioneering such breakthroughs were scientific heroes -- legendary figures such as Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, Richard Feynman, James Watson, Francis Crick, and others, names familiar even to lay people ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"But things have changed. While the past 30 years have brought a great outpouring of scientific results, breakthroughs are less common. Modern equivalents of Pauling, Salk, and Watson-Crick are not easy to identify. Considering the massive investment in science today, why is it that scientific heroes have become so scarce? Why so few conceptual breakthroughs? I refer to realized breakthroughs such as the biochemical nature of heredity or the polio vaccine, not incipient breakthroughs whose realization seems always just around the corner. Can you name more than a handful of realized breakthroughs that have come during the past three decades? ..."

(cont'd)
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Here's your paper ...

Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)

Revitalizing Science In A Risk-averse Culture: Reflections On The Syndrome And Prescriptions For Its Cure
G.H. Pollack

"... A half-century ago, breakthroughs were fairly common events that could be counted on to occur from time to time on an unpredictable but not infrequent basis. Pioneering such breakthroughs were scientific heroes -- legendary figures such as Linus Pauling, Jonas Salk, Richard Feynman, James Watson, Francis Crick, and others, names familiar even to lay people ..."

(cont'd)


Bollocks. I said the paper that you claim shows there are significant alterations to cosmic ray detections due to some woo or other. When the abstract says:

Since ***no significant anisotropies have been detected*** on any angular scale, we present upper limits on the dipole anisotropy.


So what are you on about?
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Cellular and Molecular Biology 51, 815-820 (2005)


And what has that got to do with anything? Expert in astrophysics, was he?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"Some argue that this settling down is all but inevitable. After all, science today is far more complicated than it has been, often requiring teams of investigators and large groups to pursue effectively. Others argue that there is simply not much more to be discovered -- that the breakthroughs have had their heyday and we need content ourselves with merely filling in the gaps. Thus, breakthroughs might not be expected to occur on an everyday basis.

Perhaps some of this is true -- but a significant role may also be played by another factor: the growing aversion to risk taking. Although funding agencies have much to be proud of for past achievements, it is broadly perceived that they have become less agile in dealing with proposals that dissent from orthodoxy ..."

(cont'd)
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"Challengers of the status quo rarely succeed in today's scientific climate. Hence, those approaches most apt to generate conceptual breakthroughs are throttled before they can emerge from the scientific womb.

The funding agencies worldwide are aware of this problem. Several agencies have held recent workshops to deal with the issue, and some measures have been taken over and above existing remedial programs. In the US, for example, the term 'high risk' now permeates review guidelines. And, both the NSF and the NIH have established special programs to encourage novel approaches..."

(cont'd)
jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"But things have changed. While the past 30 years have brought a great outpouring of scientific results, breakthroughs are less common. Modern equivalents of Pauling, Salk, and Watson-Crick are not easy to identify. Considering the massive investment in science today, why is it that scientific heroes have become so scarce? Why so few conceptual breakthroughs? I refer to realized breakthroughs such as the biochemical nature of heredity or the polio vaccine, not incipient breakthroughs whose realization seems always just around the corner. Can you name more than a handful of realized breakthroughs that have come during the past three decades? ..."

(cont'd)


Who gives a damn? I've read the paper (cited by 2) so no need to paste the whole effing thing here. Answer the question about your cosmic ray nonsense.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
(cont'd)

"These institutional responses acknowledge the problem. Yet, it is broadly felt that the responses are nominal. Few dissenters from orthodoxy report any more success than before. The reviewers are largely the same, and have not abruptly changed their well-honed views. Admonishing them to be 'less conservative' comes with no guarantee that they will be. Thus, effective action has yet to be taken."

--

The NSF and NIH are already aware of the problem of gatekeeping in the sciences. And yet you carry on with demanding peer reviewed papers. Nice trick you guys got going there. You better hope that Dr. Pollack's IVS doesn't get funded.
jonesdave
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2017
You can tell when Reeve hasn't got an argument left - he goes off on one of his interminable, pointless gish gallops! Yawn.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
The NSF and NIH are already aware of the problem of gatekeeping in the sciences. And yet you carry on with demanding peer reviewed papers. Nice trick you guys got going there. You better hope that Dr. Pollack's IVS doesn't get funded.


Peratt's paper got published didn't it? Albeit in an inappropriate journal. MOND papers get published. All sorts of stuff gets published. The stuff that won't get published is the rubbish by EU proponents, because they know the "science" is crap, and won't stand up to scrutiny.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2017
Hi jonesdave, HannesAlfven. :)

Again, I urge all concerned to be polite and stick to the science not irrelevancies like person/source. That way much of the feuding/past baggage can gradually be eliminated. :)

To this end, I (below) remind all 'sides' about the PLASMON ENERGY STATES/FIELDS/FEATURES which arise in all surface/high-energy situations.

I've long pointed out where plasmonic states/behavior is important (as mainstream researchers are now increasingly realizing/confirming).

Egs, in:

- Two-Slit (and modifications of same) experiments/phenomena where plasmonic energy features (electrons/photons etc) is what 'exits' the slits and hits the detector.

- Solar 'Sunspot' where most energy is 'trapped' along the filaments and less 'escapes' as radiation hence why scientists call these 'cool' spots.

- Distant Plasma clouds/filaments may be 'trapping' much of their energy, and radiating little...which may be swamped by CB radiation in all wavelengths.

Cheers. :)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2017
Distant Plasma clouds/filaments may be 'trapping' much of their energy, and radiating little...which may be swamped by CB radiation in all wavelengths.


Really? Where can I read up on that?

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.