Astrophysicists settle cosmic debate on magnetism of planets and stars

February 9, 2018, University of Chicago
3-D radiation magneto-hydrodynamic FLASH simulation of the experiment, performed on the Mira supercomputer at Argonne National Laboratory. The values demonstrate strong amplification of the seed magnetic fields by turbulent dynamo. Credit: Petros Tzeferacos/University of Chicago

The universe is highly magnetic, with everything from stars to planets to galaxies producing their own magnetic fields. Astrophysicists have long puzzled over these surprisingly strong and long-lived fields, with theories and simulations seeking a mechanism that explains their generation.

Using one of the world's most powerful laser facilities, a team led by University of Chicago scientists experimentally confirmed one of the most popular theories for cosmic generation: the turbulent dynamo. By creating a hot turbulent plasma the size of a penny, that lasts a few billionths of a second, the researchers recorded how the turbulent motions can amplify a weak magnetic to the strengths of those observed in our sun, distant stars, and galaxies.

The paper, published this week in Nature Communications, is the first laboratory demonstration of a theory, explaining the magnetic field of numerous cosmic bodies, debated by physicists for nearly a century. Using the FLASH physics simulation code, developed by the Flash Center for Computational Science at UChicago, the researchers designed an experiment conducted at the OMEGA Laser Facility in Rochester, NY to recreate turbulent dynamo conditions.

Confirming decades of numerical simulations, the experiment revealed that turbulent plasma could dramatically boost a weak magnetic field up to the magnitude observed by astronomers in stars and galaxies.

"We now know for sure that turbulent dynamo exists, and that it's one of the mechanisms that can actually explain magnetization of the universe," said Petros Tzeferacos, research assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics and associate director of the Flash Center. "This is something that we hoped we knew, but now we do."

A mechanical dynamo produces an electric current by rotating coils through a magnetic field. In astrophysics, dynamo theory proposes the reverse: the motion of electrically-conducting fluid creates and maintains a magnetic field. In the early 20th century, physicist Joseph Larmor proposed that such a mechanism could explain the magnetism of the Earth and Sun, inspiring decades of scientific debate and inquiry.

While demonstrated that turbulent plasma can generate magnetic fields at the scale of those observed in stars, planets, and galaxies, creating a turbulent dynamo in the laboratory was far more difficult. Confirming the theory requires producing plasma at extremely high temperature and volatility to produce the sufficient turbulence to fold, stretch and amplify the magnetic field.

To design an experiment that creates those conditions, Tzeferacos and colleagues at UChicago and the University of Oxford ran hundreds of two- and three-dimensional simulations with FLASH on the Mira supercomputer at Argonne National Laboratory. The final setup involved blasting two penny-sized pieces of foil with powerful lasers, propelling two jets of plasma through grids and into collision with each other, creating turbulent fluid motion.

"People have dreamed of doing this experiment with lasers for a long time, but it really took the ingenuity of this team to make this happen," said Donald Lamb, the Robert A. Millikan Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in Astronomy & Astrophysics and director of the Flash Center. "This is a huge breakthrough."

The team also used FLASH simulations to develop two independent methods for measuring the magnetic field produced by the plasma: proton radiography, the subject of a recent paper from the FLASH group, and polarized light, based on how astronomers measure the magnetic fields of distant objects. Both measurements tracked the growth in mere nanoseconds of the magnetic field from its weak initial state to over 100 kiloGauss—stronger than a high-resolution MRI scanner and a million times stronger than the magnetic field of the Earth.

"This work opens up the opportunity to verify experimentally ideas and concepts about the origin of magnetic fields in the universe that have been proposed and studied theoretically over the better part of a century," said Fausto Cattaneo, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago and a co-author of the paper.

Now that a turbulent dynamo can be created in a laboratory, scientists can explore deeper questions about its function: how quickly does the magnetic field increase in strength? How strong can the field get? How does the magnetic field alter the turbulence that amplified it?

"It's one thing to have well-developed theories, but it's another thing to really demonstrate it in a controlled laboratory setting where you can make all these kinds of measurements about what's going on," Lamb said. "Now that we can do it, we can poke it and probe it."

Explore further: Computational astrophysics team uncloaks magnetic fields of cosmic events

More information: P. Tzeferacos et al, Laboratory evidence of dynamo amplification of magnetic fields in a turbulent plasma, Nature Communications (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-02953-2

Related Stories

Did intense magnetic fields form shortly after the Big Bang?

September 13, 2011

Intense magnetic fields were probably generated in the universe shortly after the Big Bang, according to an international team led by Christoph Federrath and Gilles Chabrier of the CRAL (Centre de Recherche Astrophysique ...

Creation of a magnetic field in a turbulent fluid

March 10, 2007

Understanding the origin and behavior of the magnetic fields of planets and stars is the goal of research being carried out by many teams from all over the world. The VKS collaboration (CEA, CNRS, Ecole normale supérieure ...

VLA reveals distant galaxy's magnetic field

August 28, 2017

With the help of a gigantic cosmic lens, astronomers have measured the magnetic field of a galaxy nearly five billion light-years away. The achievement is giving them important new clues about a problem at the frontiers of ...

Recommended for you

Astronaut and moonwalker Alan Bean dies at 86

May 26, 2018

Former Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean, who was the fourth man to walk on the moon and later turned to painting to chronicle the moon landings on canvas, has died. He was 86.

APEX takes a glimpse into the heart of darkness

May 25, 2018

The 12 m radio telescope APEX in Chile has been outfitted with special equipment including broad bandwidth recorders and a stable hydrogen maser clock for performing joint interferometric observations with other telescopes ...

61 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FredJose
1 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2018
"It's one thing to have well-developed theories, but it's another thing to really demonstrate it in a controlled laboratory setting where you can make all these kinds of measurements about what's going on," Lamb said. "Now that we can do it, we can poke it and probe it."


The main problem with this experiment and what it purports to show is that the big bang requires all stars, galaxies and planets to have formed by themselves with no outside intelligence whatsoever. Thus, in contrast, here we have intelligent beings using sophisticated machinery to generate something that they hope will explain how all the magnetic fields of those naturalistic objects arose and are sustained. There could not be a bigger disconnect if you tried. This is clearly reflected by the simulations that succeed beyond the wildest expectations but then the application falls flat on it's face in real life.

There still is no explanation for the continued existence of earth's magnetic field.
FredJose
1 / 5 (16) Feb 09, 2018
The only real explanation that makes sense is that proposed by Dr Russel Humphreys whereby God used the magnetic fields generated by the alignment of spin of hydrogen atoms in water molecules to create the initial magnetic field.
Using this theory, he was able to make CONFIRMED predictions of the magnetic fields of all the planets in the solar system, plus also make predictions of the magnetic fields of stars and galaxies.
So if ever there was a great explanation for the existence of earth's magnetic field(and other astronomical bodies), this is it.
BUT: since God is involved, it is not acceptable to the atheist naturalistic religious dogma of big bang, billions of years, nebular accretion, abiogenesis and darwinian evolution.

Thankfully one can make one's own scientific evaluation of what makes sense and take a pick.

You can check it out here and decide for yourself:

https://www.icr.o...elds.pdf

Your choice.
cortezz
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 09, 2018
BUT: since God is involved, it is not acceptable to the atheist naturalistic religious dogma of big bang, billions of years, nebular accretion, abiogenesis and darwinian evolution.

The pope has declared that big bang and evolution theories are real and the pope is next to god. So maybe it's time for you, Fred, to accept these facts also. Science does not prove or disapprove god and religion can be a good thing. Both can exist but neither should be messed up with the other.

http://www.indepe...514.html
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2018
And these authors conveniently ignore a paper just released a couple months ago which shows by observation that the Sun's fields cannot be created in this way. But who cares about science?
cortezz
5 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2018
And these authors conveniently ignore a paper just released a couple months ago which shows by observation that the Sun's fields cannot be created in this way. But who cares about science?

cd85 if you just had openned the DOI link provided, you could see that the article was received 23 June 2017. And one paper isn't really that convincing to dismiss your whole project.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2018
The stupid,burns , at the core of a star the heavier elements are crushed together under trillions of tons of pressure where those atoms orbiting electrons can not maintain these orbits by electron collisions with each other causing electron transfer atom to atom , electrons seeking a atom orbit from displacement moving electrons create a current field
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (8) Feb 09, 2018
"It's one thing to have well-developed theories, but it's another thing to really demonstrate it in a controlled laboratory setting where you can make all these kinds of measurements about what's going on," Lamb said. "Now that we can do it, we can poke it and probe it."


IMHO, this is exactly correct and the way real science is done. I for one am thrilled to see actual experimental evidence for this because it has been a very long time in coming.

"The paper, published this week in Nature Communications, is the first laboratory demonstration of a theory, explaining the magnetic field of numerous cosmic bodies, debated by physicists for nearly a century."


Unless I missed something, and I may have, they are the first to actually demonstrate actual magnetic field amplification this way. Reminds me a lot of trying to find gravitational waves for decades until they were finally discovered in 2015. Maybe it is Nobel prize time!
Merrit
4.9 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2018
@FredJose just because you can't explain something does not mean it was God or aliens. You don't need an explanation for everything. Science has made a lot of progress over the years, but there are many big questions still out there.

Besides religion and science realistically have nothing to do with each other. The existence or non existence of God has no impact whatsoever on Science. Likewise science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. So just give your religious explanations a rest and let the scientists do their jobs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2018
The only real explanation that makes sense is that proposed by Dr Russel Humphreys whereby God used the magnetic fields generated by the alignment of spin of hydrogen atoms in water molecules to create the initial magnetic field
Well since god could wiggle his nose and make anything do absolutely anything, your theory is not falsefiable. But godders still make the effort to concoct half-assed theories that they claim are science.

Why bother?

Freddy how can you be so wrong and still think youre so right?

I know. Faith.
691Boat
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 09, 2018
And these authors conveniently ignore a paper just released a couple months ago which shows by observation that the Sun's fields cannot be created in this way. But who cares about science?


So now laboratory-based experiments aren't good enough for you and only observational accounts are accurate? That's neato.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2018
So now laboratory-based experiments aren't good enough for you and only observational accounts are accurate? That's neato.

If the observation does not support the theory or experiment based on that theory what does science tell you should be done with the theory and experiment? Of course observational evidence trumps theory and the experiments but that is too inconvenient for the dark sciences because they have so much invested and even more to lose.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2018
but that is too inconvenient for the dark sciences because they have so much invested and even more to lose.


Dark Sciences?!? It sounds like you have been watching too much Harry Potter. Maybe Professor Snape could help you out with your defense against the Dark Sciences. :-)
jonesdave
5 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2018
So now laboratory-based experiments aren't good enough for you and only observational accounts are accurate? That's neato.

If the observation does not support the theory or experiment based on that theory what does science tell you should be done with the theory and experiment? Of course observational evidence trumps theory and the experiments but that is too inconvenient for the dark sciences because they have so much invested and even more to lose.


Yep:
Observation: there are magnetic fields in various places throughout the universe.
Theory: it may be a dynamo effect.
Experiment: dynamo looks a very good fit.
Mark Thomas
5 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2018
Watch out jonesdave, or cantdrive85 may accuse you of dabbling in the Dark Sciences. :-)
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2018
what debate? current loop! magnetics? what? Maxwell!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2018
You are aware that magnetism is derivative. Should I be able to mathematically simulate any dynamic anywhere for any time, temporally! Using only a set of charges that define the dynamics, anything else is a cop out. At least define large scale dynamics as superimposed charge necessary for "measure??
Hyperfuzzy
2 / 5 (4) Feb 09, 2018
Admit it! You know I'm right. Diametrical Fields, all that exists as unique fields occupying all space for all time, infinite density or 0 state, any state with these rules? Juz say'n Energy is just the wrinkles in the field, pick spectra, amplitude; define charge motion, or circuit!
thisisminesothere
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2018
Alright, so aside from the religious freaks in here, maybe someone can answer this for me: If we were able to stabilize one of these things and maintain a magnetic field of sufficient size, could it be something we could use on a space station/ship of some kind to protect the inhabitants from radiation in space? Or are there other anomalies issues that go along with this that would make that prohibitive?
ForFreeMinds
5 / 5 (4) Feb 10, 2018
Seems to me, there might be some very useful and practical applications of magnetic amplification via generation of plasma from lasers. We use magnets for a lot of things such as generation of electric energy, magnetic levitation, and attempts to produce electricity from nuclear fusion. I look forward to what they come up with next.
JustACrow
5 / 5 (2) Feb 11, 2018
@thisisminesothere -- it looks like there have been scientific/engineer efforts on use of active magnetic shields to protect astronauts going back to the 1960s. Here's a paper from 1991 which references some of them.
Magnetic Radiation Shielding: An Idea Whose Time Has Returned?
Geoffrey A. Landis
Presented at the Tenth Biennial SSI/Princeton Conference on Space Manufacturing
May 15-19, 1991, Princeton, N.J.
posted with permission of author
Paper available in the volume Space Manufacturing 8: Energy and Materials from Space, 383-386 (AIAA, 1991)
I can't post the links, but you should be able to find more starting here.
archytype_net
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
That's great! But.....the better question is what create the highly charged plasma in the cosmos in the first place? Electric fields perhaps? Oh those create magnetic fields when the electric field is moving.....

Check out the work of Anthony Perat or even the Nobel prize winner, Banned Alfven. https://en.m.wiki...rg/wiki/
And the scoffed at Plasma Cosmology https://en.m.wiki...rg/wiki/Plasma_cosmology model
Even the Electric Universe model https://www.elect...oduction
archytype_net
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
Apologies

I did of course mean, Hannes Alfvén
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
@thisismine, since the effect can only be created by making plasma it's not suited for use in technological artifacts. It's a lab experiment.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 11, 2018
... If we were able to stabilize one of these things and maintain a magnetic field of sufficient size, could it be something we could use on a space station/ship of some kind to protect the inhabitants from radiation in space? Or are there other anomalies issues that go along with this that would make that prohibitive?
@thisisminesothere
in order to generate the field needed, you would need a sh*tload of power (likely Nuclear), which would come with its own problems with shielding and mass

but here are some great links that discuss the potential
https://www.unive...diation/

https://science.n...statics/
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
That's great! But.....the better question is what create the highly charged plasma in the cosmos in the first place? Electric fields perhaps? Oh those create magnetic fields when the electric field is moving.....

Check out the work of Anthony Perat or even the Nobel prize winner, Banned Alfven. https://en.m.wiki...rg/wiki/


No need to revisit Alfven and Peratt's decades old debunked cosmological models. They are in the dustbin of history.
EU/PC is junk. It explains precisely nothing. Why would anyone bother?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
......what create the highly charged plasma in the cosmos in the first place?


What 'highly charged' plasma? Most of it is either neutral or singly ionised.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2018
What 'highly charged' plasma? Most of it is either neutral or singly ionised.

Says the plasma ignoramus. Apparently ions and electrons are "neutral"....
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2018
One question regarding these amplified fields, how exactly does this experiment reconcile with magnetic pole reversals and cycles such as the Sun's 22-year cycle?
Elmo_McGillicutty
not rated yet Feb 12, 2018
Take a glass ring. Rub it on a cat. Spin the ring. Magic. A magnetic field appears.

Spin it faster for a larger field. I'm sure it's evidence for a quantum theory.

FredJose
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2018
Like I said - you read it, evaluate it and take your pick. Nobody is forcing anyone to adopt any philosophical viewpoint.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Besides religion and science realistically have nothing to do with each other. The existence or non existence of God has no impact whatsoever on Science.

Seems like your philosophical underpinnings is sadly lacking, friend. It's only BECAUSE of the fact that early scientists held the view that God created things to be logically understood by mankind that we have science at all.
In contrast, we now have people believing in an unobserved/unobservable big bang, stars creating themselves, planets creating themselves, abiogenesis and darwinian evolution - all bound to a naturalistic materialism, in other words a different kind of religion that requires much more FAITH to swallow than that there is a superior intelligence with the power and might to create all things.
But godders still make the effort to concoct half-assed theories that they claim are science.
Perhaps you should bother to read the paper or look at the confirmations of the predictions 2 decades later.
FredJose
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Observation: there are magnetic fields in various places throughout the universe.
Theory: it may be a dynamo effect.
Experiment: dynamo looks a very good fit.

True, it might look like that now but do not forget the philosophy behind it:
The dynamo is required to explain why these fields still exist after billions of years because they just shouldn't be there in most if not all cases. In this case the philosophy drives the expectation and hence the theory.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2018
True, it might look like that now but do not forget the philosophy behind it:


Science doesn't do 'philosophy'. That is for religions and pseudosciences. You have a scientifically possible hypothesis. Then you look for evidence that will either support or refute that hypothesis.

By the way, I think the headline to this article is somewhat overblown - I don't believe the scientists involved claim to have solved this problem - merely that their experiment is consistent with one particular hypothesis.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
What 'highly charged' plasma? Most of it is either neutral or singly ionised.

Says the plasma ignoramus. Apparently ions and electrons are "neutral"....


Oh dear. EU plasma 'science' strikes again! Tell me, what does a neutral hydrogen atom consist of? What is the overall charge of the solar wind?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
Tell me, what does a neutral hydrogen atom consist of?

The make-up of a single atom is meaningless to this discussion, however, a "gas" that is even partially ionized will behave as a plasma. To suggest a cosmic HI "cloud" doesn't have free ions and electrons present would be moronic, why am I not surprised you are trying to do so?

What is the overall charge of the solar wind?

Again, a meaningless question posed by a moron plasma ignoramus. Quasi-neutral in no way suggests absolute neutrality, the fact that double layers, Birkeland currents, plasmoids, and other plasma structures exist and we have measured them in situ proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that charge separation does in fact occur in spaces plasmas and your fanciful pseudoscientific beliefs of the "ideal gases" your edifice is built upon is meaningless claptrap.
What would be amusing is if you tried to answer your own moronic question, but I won't hold my breath as you got nothing.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
^^^^^Oh dear. He's at it again. This from a person who cannot figure out the cause of solar flares, and thinks they may be due to Langmuir waves or exploding double layers! I kid you not.
The article, in case you didn't read it, is about the large scale magnetism throughout the universe - not interesting small scale phenomena that may happen in planetary or solar atmospheres. The solar wind is quasi-neutral (as measured) over lengths of ~ > 10m. If it weren't, then a whole host of spacecraft that have been immersed in it might have noticed.
And an H I cloud will have how many electrons? And how many ions? Well. it'll have x ions and x electrons. +x + (-x) = 0. And they'll be massively outnumbered by neutrals. That is why they are difficult to detect. H II clouds, on the other hand, can be seen more easily due to the emissions from recombination: H+ + e- = H, with a detectable energy emission at certain wavelengths.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
thinks they may be due to Langmuir waves or exploding double layers! I kid you not.

Langmuir waves are the result of a Langmuir burst, nice strawman... And who'da thunk that actual plasma processes would be happening in plasmas ILO pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as the breaking field lines of MRx.
The article, in case you didn't read it, is about the large scale magnetism throughout the universe

Plasma processes occur over at least 14 orders of magnitude and very possibly 28 orders, either of which describes the above.
The solar wind is quasi-neutral (as measured) over lengths of ~ > 10m. If it weren't, then a whole host of spacecraft that have been immersed in it might have noticed.

Yep, such as the Van Allen probes which detected thousands of double layers in parallel that equated to 1,000,000 volts potential drop in near Earth space. Sounds like your beliefs are bupkis.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Well. it'll have x ions and x electrons. +x + (-x) = 0. And they'll be massively outnumbered by neutrals.

Well, I guess if your equation says so, it must be! BTW, the ionosphere is a fraction of 1% ionized and it behaves as an electrodynamic plasma so once again your equation is bupkis! Lest we not forget the observed magnetic fields in these "neutral" clouds, thems fancy magnetical fields must be magically created! Let me guess, you deity Einstein must have created them when he set off the big bang creation event.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
Well. it'll have x ions and x electrons. +x + (-x) = 0. And they'll be massively outnumbered by neutrals.

Well, I guess if your equation says so, it must be! BTW, the ionosphere is a fraction of 1% ionized and it behaves as an electrodynamic plasma so once again your equation is bupkis! Lest we not forget the observed magnetic fields in these "neutral" clouds, thems fancy magnetical fields must be magically created! Let me guess, you deity Einstein must have created them when he set off the big bang creation event.


Well, you certainly have no scientifically viable hypothesis, do you?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
Langmuir waves are the result of a Langmuir burst, nice strawman... And who'da thunk that actual plasma processes would be happening in plasmas ILO pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo such as the breaking field lines of MRx.


Whoops, calling Falthammar a pseudoscientist again! You should be careful, you'll be thrown out by the cult leaders!
And what, pray tell, is a Langmuir burst? I think you'll find that they are Langmuir wave bursts. The waves only exist after the solar flare has erupted, and caused shock mechanisms in the corona due to shock accelerated electrons, which then propagate outwards. They manifest themselves as bursts of waves which can be detected by spacecraft.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
Yep, such as the Van Allen probes which detected thousands of double layers in parallel that equated to 1,000,000 volts potential drop in near Earth space. Sounds like your beliefs are bupkis


Comprehension not one of your strong points, is it? Assuming you have any. I am talking about the solar wind. You know, the thing that is dominant in interplanetary space? Not the bloody Van Allen belts. Yes, all sorts of interesting stuff can happen when the solar wind encounters planetary atmospheres, or cometary comae. However, we are talking about the SW nowhere near a planet or comet, just tootling along being quasi-neutral. As measured.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
Plasma processes occur over at least 14 orders of magnitude and very possibly 28 orders, either of which describes the above.


Which plasma processes, and where have they been invoked to explain the magnetic fields described in this paper? What is the evidence for them? What would the evidence be, were these unexplained processes happening?

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
Well, you certainly have no scientifically viable hypothesis, do you?

On the contrary, electric Birkeland currents create the those magnetic fields, no magic required. Only well established principles based in electrical engineering concepts developed hand-in-hand with experiments (Maxwell, Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, et al), in situ observation (beginning with the first spacecraft which showed space plasmas are nothing like what you claim them to be), and theoretical approaches.
It is the movement of charge (electricity) which drives the Universe. Electric currents at all scales are a natural consequence of electrodynamic plasma, we are awash in a sea of it. You just need to bury Einstein and his fanciful anti-science relativity and it's bevy of required dark stuffs to make it work.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2018
So where is the evidence for these galaxy spanning currents? As proposed by Peratt? Answer; they don't exist, hence why his hypothesis is not taken seriously.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
So where is the evidence for these galaxy spanning currents?

Here is an article that describes them on a couple different scales;
https://phys.org/...axy.html

First, they mention the Fermi bubbles. The Fermi bubbles are the detectable lobes of the hourglass shape pinch in the intergalactic Birkeland current. Just as expected;
http://electric-c...xies.pdf
Then they go on to comment on the swarm of hydrogen "clouds" moving at near supersonic speeds being carried along by a "nuclear" wind away from the galactic center and which seem to have no end...
Nope, no evidence. None... Except all that should be expected by opening ones "old" eyes and can see the light(ning).
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Let us also not forget the "magnetic portals" (Birkeland currents) which connect with the Earth every 8 minutes?
https://science.n...oct_ftes
How does that fit in you explanation that it's all neutral?
Then there is the smallest scale mapping of the structure of the solar wind. Swirly, filamentary, and cellular! There is that scalability again.

http://sci.esa.in...ar-wind/

As mentioned, it's nothing like the inert "neutral gas" you keep pandering.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
I asked about Peratt's galaxy spanning currents (avg. length 350 Mpc). What do we get?

Here is an article that describes them on a couple different scales;
https://phys.org/...axy.html


Neutral bloody hydrogen clouds rising somewhat above our own galaxy! Where is the current powering the galaxies, as outlined by Peratt? To put everyone out of their misery, Peratt predicted that the evidence would be found in the CMB maps. COBE, Planck and WMAP all failed to see them. Hence why the hypothesis died on its arse.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
What do we get?
@jonesdave
when you ask a pseudoscience cult for evidence, you should expect to get random interjections of inane stupidity attempting to divert the conversation into a rabbit hole

that is all they ever give, other than to claim that everyone (but themselves and fellow cult members) is an ignoramus

funny how all that science built computers, GPS, space travel and exploration etc, while the eu cult built: nothing
nada
zilch
zippo
null

LMFAO
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2018
@CS,
Indeed. Equally tragic is that cd then quotes measurements from the Cluster satellites. These are obviously in near Earth space, where the SW is influenced by the Earth's magnetic field. Even more tragic is that the authors of that paper are using the data to look for signs of reconnection! Which, of course, is the primary aim of the Cluster satellites!
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2018
Let us also not forget the "magnetic portals" (Birkeland currents) which connect with the Earth every 8 minutes?
https://science.n...oct_ftes


Oh boy! These are not 'Birkeland currents'! If you read the article, it is about Cluster (again) and Themis detecting reconnection at the magnetopause. Here is a free access paper describing it:

Evidence for a flux transfer event generated by multiple X-line reconnection at the magnetopause
http://onlinelibr...219/full

One of the co-authors is a regular poster at ISF. I could check for you, but I know what he'll say, and I'd rather not upset him!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2018
Evidence for a flux transfer event generated by multiple X-line reconnection at the magnetopause
http://onlinelibr...219/full

No, no pseudoscientific claptrap concepts are needed to explain these plasma processes.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2018
No, no pseudoscientific claptrap concepts are needed to explain these plasma processes.


And there you go again......calling Falthammar a pseudoscientist! Shame on you. Perhaps you could point out where, in the last decade, based on the latest experiments and observations, anybody has come up with a different explanation. Replete, of course, with all the necessary physics, etc., as observed.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2018
Actually, Falthammar has been very clear to distance himself from the pseudoscientific aspects of MRx, he even wrote a paper;
http://onlinelibr...4.f01t01

And here is the pseudoscientific claptrap Belcher tries to pull-off. Note, astrophysicists almost always treat EM theory in the same incorrect way in which Belcher uses them.

http://aapt.scita....1531577
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2018
The universe is highly magnetic, with everything from stars to planets to galaxies producing their own magnetic fields. Astrophysicists have long puzzled over these surprisingly strong and long-lived fields, with theories and simulations seeking a mechanism that explains their generation.

The most amusing aspect of this "puzzling" and "surprising" quandary is there is a quite simple explanation that is seemingly quite beyond the plasma ignoramuses. Electric currents flowing through plasmas will generate magnetic fields, and ironically electric currents are a natural consequence of inhomogeneous plasmas which is exactly what the Universe consists of.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2018

And here is the pseudoscientific claptrap Belcher tries to pull-off. Note, astrophysicists almost always treat EM theory in the same incorrect way in which Belcher uses them.

http://aapt.scita....1531577

Please note, this pseudoscientific claptrap, as pounted out by Falthammar, was published by AJP. A valid question then should posed, how much more pseudoscientific claptrap has been published in that sci-fi rag?
jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
Nice try cantthink, but the Falthammar and Mozer paper you linked, is only the abstract. Had you bothered to read the full article, here is what they say:

In fact, the most interesting plasma physics occurs precisely where and because this equation is not satisfied, such as the auroral acceleration region, ***magnetic field reconnection***, turbulence, shocks, and many wave modes


So, there is Falthammar denying MRx by mentioning that it happens! And is co-authoring with a chap who has written much on MRx, and sure as hell doesn't deny it.
Here is the full paper, which cantthink tried to avoid posting:
http://onlinelibr...0002/pdf

And here is Falthammar devoting a whole section to the phenomenon of MRx. Certainly isn't distancing himself from it here, is he?
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

jonesdave
5 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
So, let's continue to educate cantthink on one of his heroes. Here is Falthammar in 1979, co-authoring with the aforementioned F. S. Mozer, among others:

http://onlinelibr...305/full

In this the authors state:

Both the large scale average electric field and the fine scale field observed during a magnetopause crossing show the existence of significant tangential electric field components on both sides of the magnetopause, ***in agreement with the requirements of reconnection theories***


So, at least as early as 1979 Falthammar is, at the very least, acknowledging that MRx could well be responsible for the observations. Mind you, Alfven himself had admitted as much previously.

jonesdave
5 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2018
And here is Alfven from 1976:

http://onlinelibr...019/full

In case the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near neutral points may change in such a way that it is legitimate to speak of a 'field-line reconnection' We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the field-line reconnection formalism may be applicable, but this remains to be proved.


And in this table, from 1987:
http://www.imageb...31125370 (see the highlighted parts)

From the paper, here:
http://onlinelibr...475/full

The paper is paywalled, but I'm sure that true acolytes of Alfven will have read every word he wrote.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2018
So, there is Falthammar denying MRx

You are a true complete moron, where did I say Falthammar denied MRx? This is what I said;
"Falthammar has been very clear to distance himself from the pseudoscientific aspects of MRx, he even wrote a paper..."
And that is exactly what he did when he pointed to Belcher's misuse which is how a majority of plasma ignoramuses treat the plasma. The same argument as Alfvén, Falthammar is explaining how it is misused. Most plasma ignoramuses use Belcher's methods, unlike Falthammar.
jonesdave
5 / 5 (5) Feb 15, 2018
^^^^^^Wrong. No, they don't use the frozen-in concept. Try to read. Have a look at Mozer's papers. Have a look at the other papers cited by Falthammar regarding MRx. No plasma physicist that I have read uses the frozen-in concept when describing MRx. Perhaps some had in the past, and that is what Alfven was railing against. Rightly so - because MRx cannot happen in ideal MHD. Nobody believes that it can. Which is what Falthammar is saying. However, if you can find me a well cited paper from the last few decades that does use ideal MHD in modelling MRx, then I'll read it.

The MRx that Falthammar 'believes' in, is the same MRx that everybody else is describing. However, at least we now know that the EU crowd accept that MRx happens.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2018
Gentlemen, do any of you know what is magnetism and how it arises and who causes it? From your discussions you can see that you have no idea about it. Even all previous scientific information about it is incomplete and wrong, and therefore there are many stupid and unnatural theories, which for scientists represent the deities as golden calfs for the old Jews who escaped from bondage from Egypt.
Who does not know the structure of the universe and does not accept that the universe, as infinite size, is filled with the substance AETHER, from which the matter is formed in two "aggregate states". Aether and "fluid state" of matter cause magnetism !! Remember this, because it is more than all the previous Nobel Prizes, which teach the way to blind streets and dark spaces. Look at the table of chemical elements and learn: where there are more proton neutrons, there is measurable magnetism. Why, I can give an explanation if you nominate me for the Nobel Prize.

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.