Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
What do you propose causes the magnetic fields Gaensler and many other teams are mapping?
Since plasma dominates the inter-stellar regions of space, would it be a giant leap to conclude it is an electric current? Is this not well the simplest of Maxwell... ? one and the same? Are you proposing bar magnets? Gaensler certainly is not.
Gaensler is ofcourse not proposing an externally powered sun, or Alfven like galactic system, his work (to my knowledge) is focusing on a dynamo style theory, unfortunately the issue of where the seed current (or m-field) comes from.
Either way, Gaenslers work and others are reporting... the magnetic fields, and there for large currents (since they are one an the same) are there, awaiting explanation.
|
Where do these fields come from??
Well, whilst they're not certain as to where the original field in the galaxies came from (although there are ideas....namely a primordial field generated by the first stars and such, as well as a dynamo generated by the flowing ionised gases), the field of the galaxies are generated from several sources...namely photo-ionisation and shock waves traveling through the ISM (from supernovae, stellar winds of various kinds and other sources). They basically ionise all the gas that's present and electrifies the dust grains through the photoelectric effect. That generates the magnetic field. The fields themselves are pitifully weak...on the order on 10 nanotesla on the average!!!. Well, that's some 50000 times less intense than the earth's own field. The fact that these field are present in the spiral arms is no big deal....that's where much of the ionised gases and dust are, where most of the supernovae occur and where nearly all the massive stars which are able to ionise the ISM through their starlight and stellar winds, etc, are located. But what might also come as a surprise to you and the rest of the EU crowd is that the galaxy doesn't end at the spiral arms. Most of the gas and the stars in the galaxy doesn't even reside in the arms. All the arms are areas of over density...around 10-20% higher than average. The arms are generated by a
spiral density wave that the materials within the galaxies move through. The density waves themselves only move slowly through the galaxies or not at all. All those other stars and ionised gases also maintain a very weak field as well. There are no large Birkeland currents traveling through the ISM creating spiral arms or anything else. There maybe electrical currents in the ISM, yes, but nothing of the scale or extent that are being bandied about by the EU fraternity. Nothing of the extent that could effectively confine the gases and dust to spiral arms without generating far more radio waves, synchrotron radiation and bremsstrahlung than what is actually present. And this is just for a start. Plus as has been mentioned before, where is the source of the charge separation and what is maintaining it to be able to generate all these currents?? Especially currents of the extent proposed. What currents are there don't even rate with the currents experienced in interplanetary space or on the planets themselves. There's no comparison.
As I have repeatedly said to you on numerous occasions, I have no problems with plasma physics or it's importance in astrophysics. However, I have a concern where that physics gets taken out of its proper context and used in situations in which there have been little or no observational or theoretical evidence for its existence, or no need for it. Where that happens and claims are made to the contrary, then those claims have to be backed up by extremely solid evidence (not just one or two experiments cited umpteen number of times, as Peratt has.), or otherwise they have no valid basis. That's how science works. If you can't falsify a hypothesis then it was never valid to begin with. It becomes nothing more than speculation.
No, Gaensler never proposed that, but Scott, Peratt and those two Neo Velikovskian twits who wrote "Thunderbolts of the Gods" are. Gaensler wouldn't be so stupid to treat other scientist as fools by proposing that sort of tripe. Plus, he'd make a mockery of his own career and most likely jeopardise it by holding onto notions like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Does this align with PC/EU expectations? Well one simple look at Alfven's circuit and Peratt's simulations makes it kinda obvious. What are the other explanations?
I'll continue to explore mainstreams ideas for pulsars, but we are now hitting 25%c rotation, and other fantastic forms of matter, relaxation oscillators are (to me) a far far simpler explanation, i am more at ease with these ideas. It does require that pulsars occur as binary pairs. The EU pulsar model was a bucket of pennies dropping for me, after years of following the lighthouse theory.... i simply find the RPM involved in these fantastic beacons of light to be to much of a stretch.
|
Alfven's circuit ideas and Peratt's few simulations have no bearings on what's there in reality. If they did, they would be readily accepted and studied accordingly. However the reasons why they aren't accepted are the fact that their ideas have been tested and found wanting. They may hold for certain situations....with the interplanetary environment, the planets themselves and with certain aspects of astrophysical phenomenon, but they have not been found applicable as a overall general phenomenon to be applied to all situations.
Like I said, Alex, get some textbooks and read them if you want to learn about this. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to. Read the books written by those that have the track records in these fields of astrophysics. They're the ones to learn off if you need to. None of us here have been able to talk any sense to you, so you might as well go to the source and learn from there. As a matter of fact....here....
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...s=astrophysics
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars
http://www.fishpond.com.au/Books/Sci...+neutron+stars
There you are....you said you were serious about wanting to find out about mainstream science theories and observations. Here's some books then for you to buy. You may not want to buy all of them, and there are a great many more I could've listed but if you're serious and honest about this, then get the books that you can.