Giant Magnetic Loop Sweeps Through Space Between Stellar Pair

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2010/algol/

Astronomers have found a giant magnetic loop stretched outward from one of the stars making up the famous double-star system Algol. The scientists used an international collection of radio telescopes to discover the feature, which may help explain details of previous observations of the stellar system

As the secondary star orbits its companion, one side -- the side with the magnetic loop -- constantly faces the more-massive star, just as the same side of our Moon always faces the Earth.

The scientists detected the magnetic loop by making extremely detailed images of the system using an intercontinental set of radio telescopes, including the National Science Foundation's Very Long Baseline Array, Very Large Array, and Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope

Algol, in the constellation Perseus, is visible to the naked eye and well-known to amateur astronomers. As seen from Earth, the two stars regularly pass in front of each other, causing a notable change in brightness. The pair completes a cycle of such eclipses in less than three days, making it a popular object for amateur observers. The variability in brightness was discovered by an Italian astronomer in 1667, and the eclipsing-binary explanation was confirmed in 1889.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Very interesting article, but this in no way proves anything that you might believe in. Anyone with half a brain and enough astrophysical knowledge would know that there'd be some sort of magnetic interaction between the two stars. For a start, they orbit rather close to one another and I think it can be fairly certain that the magnetospheres of both stars are interacting. The boundary sheaths between the oppositely aligned magnetic hemispheres of both stars would be intertwined for a start, as well. I would also say that there is a torus of highly ionised gas connecting both stars and a very highly charged flux tube confining that torus of material. You have almost the same sort of situation with the interaction between Jupiter and Io, except in the case of the two stars it'll most likely be a bit more complicated.

Like I've told you 1000 times, yes, plasmas do play an important part in space but not at the scales you think, nor in some of the situations you might believe they do.

[xelasnave]

No no no this is evidence of gravity push

I find the matter most interesting and thanks for posting.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

No no no this is evidence of gravity push

I find the matter most interesting and thanks for posting.

alex

But where is it pushing to?? Huh Alex

[xelasnave]

I was attempting to take into account special relativity and point out how different observers observe things ..er differently ... It was my attempt my effort at a little joke... Seriously I did not look at it to make push fit the observation... I have retired my quest for TOE content that I was right all along.

I think it is great that we get to keep up with such discoveries and observations nothing more.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I was attempting to take into account special relativity and point out how different observers observe things ..er differently ... It was my attempt my effort at a little joke... Seriously I did not look at it to make push fit the observation... I have retired my quest for TOE content that I was right all along.

I think it is great that we get to keep up with such discoveries and observations nothing more.

alex

I know mate... I was just having a bit of fun with you

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

No no no this is evidence of gravity push

I find the matter most interesting and thanks for posting.

alex

Thanks Alex,

We should all keep in mind that these large magnetic structures are MANY times larger than the celestial bodies they interact with.

Also, magnetic fields can ONLY be formed from electric currents. There is a massive amount of electrical current flowing between these bodies.

Carl is correct, similar Birkeland currents have been found between Saturn and Jupiter and their moons.

The Birkeland Current was named after Kristian Birkeland, who both discovered that the Aurora was powered by giant electrical currents from the Sun, by conducting a Polar expedition, setting up measuring stations, and almost dieing in the process. He then returned to build a model of this, and experimentally verified the behavior in a lab.

Birkeland and his teralla experiment:http://www.aldebaran.cz/actions/2002.../birkeland.jpg

Some more birkeland currents: http://www.google.com.au/images?q=birkeland+current

It should be noted at the time, the British mathematician Sydney Chapman, from his desk, unleashed a violent attack on Birkelands theories formed from his expedition and lab experiment, even attacking him well after his death.

THEN: We launched space satellites equipped with Langmuir probes, to actually measure these electrical currents... monster currents.

Birkeland was again verified, and now appears famously on overseas currency.

In the face of mathematical certainty he was a pioneer of empirics, that we still benefit from today.

It's funny that todays astronomers still give "Birkeland Currents" wild names from: Space tornados, rubber bands, flux tubes. I think this is just good old marketing, or just denial of the only thing that can cause a magnetic field to form. Electrical current.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...29currents.jpg

Next time you receive an astronomer louding preach 'rubber band flux tube', you'll be well equipped for a revealing question of Birkeland Current history, which forms common knowledge amongst some radio astronomers and plasma cosmologists. It's easy. It's just current down a wire, like those in your house, and like the fluro tubes in the ceiling.

[renormalised (Carl)]

It's funny that todays astronomers still give them wild names from: Space tornados, rubber bands, flux tubes. I think this is just good old marketing, or just denial of the only thing that can cause a magnetic field to form. Electrical current.

No Alex, it's not a denial of anything. It also takes a magnetic field to generate an electric current...remember your high school physics.

As far as the names goes, you can call them anything you like. That's neither here nor there.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just thinking....I wonder how much current is traveling down the flux tube/s. Could figure it out from the intensity of the xray and radio emissions. Be interesting to find out.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

No Alex, it's not a denial of anything. It also takes a magnetic field to generate an electric current...remember your high school physics.

The potential of an e-field, or 'charge separation' can cause the movement of a charged particle, and the establishment of an electrical current. It is this movement that establishes a magnetic field, as described by Faraday, and in relationships described Lenz.

In this example, it is charge separation that initiated the m-field.

Yes correct a magnetic field can also then distribute it's energy into and electric current. To initially, at the very start create the m-field charge separation is required. In this sense the m-field can be thought of as the 'decay' field, this helps when moving into the study of dielectrics and electrostatics.

As far as the names goes, you can call them anything you like. That's neither here nor there.

I find cross-discipline nomenclature is very important for progress, my comments highlighted by concern for this, much work has been done in lab plasma physics over the past 50 years. It will assist to use common nomenclature, and minimize creative inventions, something which lets face it, modern astronomy has a talent for.

Just thinking....I wonder how much current is traveling down the flux tube/s. Could figure it out from the intensity of the xray and radio emissions. Be interesting to find out.

Be careful Carl, you're starting to sound like a plasma cosmologist.

Professor Anthony Peratt from JPL, has developed what is known as the encyclopedia for analyzing the empirics in the way your good intuition is leading.

Anthony Peratt - http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma.../dp/0387975756

Anthony of course was student and colleague of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, who established much of the tools we use today.

No matter your resistive opinions of myself, the crew over at thunderbolts have assisted me in the same questions you now ask curiously. I do not come from there, i started here at IIS, i had the same questions, they had *some* references to material noted above.

We might just find a common character in both our senses of passionate curiosity.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Also, magnetic fields can ONLY be formed from electric currents.

I thought we had debunked that statement in an earlier thread a while ago. Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current, just like static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.

Cheers
Steffen.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Be careful Carl, you're starting to sound like a plasma cosmologist.

There's more chance of the Universe collapsing in on itself immediately after I finish this sentence than of that ever happening

Since the above event never occurred (since I am writing another sentence), there's the answer to that question

About Perrat's book....way out of my league...at $850 a pop.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

I thought we had debunked that statement in an earlier thread a while ago. Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current, just like static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.

Cheers
Steffen.

I was waiting for someone to post that...spot on.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

I thought we had debunked that statement in an earlier thread a while ago. Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current, just like static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.

Cheers
Steffen.

Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current
** If one continues to ignore the charged particle movement, in this case the electron around the nucleus, providing the current. Albeit not slightly more than a freshman level study. Professor Lewin has a good, free lecture series on this from MIT.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...m-spring-2002/

static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.
** Yes as mentioned...charge potential can exist before the 'decay field' (m) becomes involved... these are the conditions that give rise to the initiation of an electric current in plasma.

The psudeo-skeptic debunkathon reflects a side of science i don't think the good audience of curious slightly brighter than most laymen here appreciate. One might begin to wonder if any insightful thread creations or sharing of information or research might ever come from the serial debunkers that preside here.

Re $850 - one might find the inspiration to search for Peratt's free published IEEE papers.

To see the farm is to leave it. The best to you all.

[renormalised (Carl)]

That MIT link is very handy....couple of good courses on there I might have a look at.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current
** If one continues to ignore the charged particle movement, in this case the electron around the nucleus, providing the current. Albeit not slightly more than a freshman level study. Professor Lewin has a good, free lecture series on this from MIT.

You're misunderstanding the lecture if you're assuming that ferrormagnetism (for example) is caused by the material's electrons conspiring to form an electric current which in turn creates a magnetic field. Those electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment, and in ferromagnetic materials there is an imbalance of magnetic moment per atom. Sure, electrons are charged particles, but even neutral particles are believed to have an intrinsic magnetic momentum.

The psudeo-skeptic debunkathon reflects a side of science i don't think the good audience of curious slightly brighter than most laymen here appreciate. One might begin to wonder if any insightful thread creations or sharing of information or research might ever come from the serial debunkers that preside here.

I assure you there is nothing pseudo about my scepticism, and I choose to ignore the scorn and derision you're sending my way.

Cheers
Steffen.

[adman (Adam)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current
** If one continues to ignore the charged particle movement, in this case the electron around the nucleus, providing the current

Alex - most of these arguments go way over my head - but this one doesn't seem to make sense - can you expand on this for me...?

Adam

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by adman

Alex - most of these arguments go way over my head - but this one doesn't seem to make sense - can you expand on this for me...?

Adam

What he's trying to say, erroneously, is that it that the movement of the electrons about the nucleus of the atom is creating an electric current which forms the field.

Problem is, the atoms in most materials are actually electrically neutral, as the balance of charge between the electron cloud around the atoms and the nucleus is about equal. The electrons of an atom usually come in pairs whose spin is up and down (can't have two of the same spin in the same orbital...(Pauli Exclusion Principle)). If the orbitals are filled with up/down pairs, the dipole moment of the atoms is effectively zero. An atom will only show a magnetic moment if the orbitals are partially filled...i.e. some of the orbitals have only one of the electrons in a pair, either up or down. What happens with ferromagnetic materials is that the electrons in the atoms become predominately up or down in those partially filled shells...and that, along with the charge carried by the electron creates the field. They usually align themselves to the prevailing magnetic field they find themselves in, or are forced into that alignment via physical processes. They form what are called magnetic domains within the material...small magnets, if you will.

An electric current implies a flow of electrons. Try measuring the current in a ferromagnetic material. You won't find one.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by adman

Alex - most of these arguments go way over my head - but this one doesn't seem to make sense - can you expand on this for me...?

Adam

The gentlemen here appear ignorant of Ampere's solution, consistent with the classical electrodynamic model. The Ampre' Model, which can be found from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet "Two models for magnets: magnetic poles and atomic currents"

Here, I have described an Amperian Current.

That they leap to ferri, ferro, and magnetic domains, shows they have leapt beyond this understanding into a larger scope, for which their contribution is not incorrect.

Closer investigation of the mentioned model will give Carl his answer of why ferromagnetic material displays no current.

We can then go on to all things quantum, but essentially we are moving beyond what is required to explain observed phenomena that is in relation to this astronomical re-discovery, that is the Birkeland Current.

Cranky resistive debunking is simply not adding to our collective understanding of the thread on topic. Adam i thankyou for your polite approach, in the form of a question or query, of which i can try to point to what may help, or not. I can only try.

I look forward to see some insightful new discoveries, threads, and information sharing that will soon be appearing from these other obviously passionate apologists. or not?

Much like you all i am just a curious layman, sharing some interesting discoveries with relevant references, go research for yourselves, and make a contribution.

Edit: See above wonderful MIT lecture series, or http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin.../lectures.html
Beyond this, good luck with your individual investigations.

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The electrons of an atom usually come in pairs whose spin is up and down (can't have two of the same spin in the same orbital...(Pauli Exclusion Principle)). If the orbitals are filled with up/down pairs, the dipole moment of the atoms is effectively zero. An atom will only show a magnetic moment if the orbitals are partially filled...i.e. some of the orbitals have only one of the electrons in a pair, either up or down.

This is effectively the basis for NMR spectroscopy.

Mark