Planck Data and Photos

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Planck/SEMMN9CKP6G_0.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8645156.stm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...on_esa_466.jpg

Some wonderful new shots from Planck... and they call this 'reject data'... ?

"Giant filaments of cold dust stretching through our Galaxy are revealed in a new image from ESA’s Planck satellite."
“What makes these structures have these particular shapes is not well understood,” says Jan Tauber, ESA Project Scientist for Planck. "

Giant filaments hey? Wouldn't be a Birkeland filament would it? Next thing they'll be telling us is the galaxy is full of magnetism.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Form the website "“What makes these structures have these particular shapes is not well understood,” says Jan Tauber, ESA Project Scientist for Planck. The denser parts are called molecular clouds while the more diffuse parts are ‘cirrus’. They consist of both dust and gas, although the gas does not show up directly in this image.
There are many forces at work in the Galaxy to help shape the molecular clouds and cirrus into these filamentary patterns. For example, on large scales the Galaxy rotates, creating spiral patterns of stars, dust, and gas. Gravity exerts an important influence, pulling on the dust and gas. Radiation and particle jets from stars push the dust and gas around, and magnetic fields also play a role, although to what extent is presently unclear. "

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Ok, so they say magnetic fields are playing a role. If there is magnetism, then a current is present, these gas fields by definition/observation are plasma. Not surprising since 99.9% of the universe's matter is in the 'plasma' state.

"In plasma, electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of 10^36, and electromagnetism is 10^7 times stronger than gravity even in neutral hydrogen regions, where the degree of ionization is a miniscule 10–4."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4w5l7l06280863r/

Universals filamentary structures were indeed predicted by plasma physicists in the 1950s. One only has to look at a plasma ball to see the filamentary structures and patterns produced by our sun, and now here in the galaxy photos from planc.

It's great we are now starting to take great photos of the same filamentary structures we create in the lab.... or in any lucky kids bedroom who has a plasma ball. Same stuff, different scales.

It seems we are now 'rediscovering' the obvious. Understanding these processes will be key to universal models... funny how it was labeled 'junk data'. Profound implications.

[bojan]

Well, if it is not EM, it could be sound....
http://hetdex.org/dark_energy/how_fi...und_waves.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...lustering.html
http://www.newuniverse.co.uk/archive_1766_print.html

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0512/0512047.pdf

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Do sound waves spiral into filaments do they boys?
2 very different forces, with very different behaviors.

These guys need to pay attention to what "hot gas" means... It's plasma boys... as mentioned before.... plasma pays attention to 1 thing. The magnetic field induced by flowing current (faraday). Magnetohydrodynamics. <--

You do not get a magnetic field, without current. There are no frozen in field lines... the current must be present.
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/im...lix_c2c3_4.gif
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/558...ogy0001lq0.jpg
http://www.4thdayalliance.com/articl...les/aurora.jpg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/im...enniummini.jpg
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~tdo/image...lix_nebula.png

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...suns-corona-th
They also use these similar magical "sound waves" to explain why our "bubbling fusion sun" has a (from the core out):
30,000,000K Core (hypothesised for fusion temp... not measured!)
3,000K Sun spots (real measured temp of sunspot holes)
6,000K Surface (real measured temp)
2,000,000K Corona (real measured temp)

See anything stupid in those numbers?

Even NASA is starting to get the hint http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/...ceweather3.jpg
Man those SDO images are amazing... can't wait to see a sunspot up close.

It gets better... Check out what Caltech are doing in the lab:
Coronal loop? http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plas...solr675red.gif
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/kink.jpg
http://ve4xm.caltech.edu/Bellan_plasma_page/

[renormalised (Carl)]

Actually, core temp is about 15million K and there's nothing crazy about those numbers at all. In any case, there's no way you're going to directly measure the core temp of the Sun.

Also, the Sun is full of sound waves.

It's also a magnetohydrodynamic cauldron as well. You can't separate out one particular process and say its the dominant one, because in a body like the Sun, there are a number of equally important processes going on.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Actually, core temp is about 15million K and there's nothing crazy about those numbers at all. In any case, there's no way you're going to directly measure the core temp of the Sun.

Actually or no way? which one?

nothing crazy about those numbers at all.

Carl... have a look again at the order of real measured temperatures.... then have a look at the leap of faith required by the fusion core model.

Start from the (outside) 2,000,000K corona (real, measured)
then you get to the surface and it's 6,000K (real measured)
then you look down a hole and it's cooler 3,000K (real measured)

then the hypothesized model magically 'pop's back up to... wait for it... 15,000,000K

Please explain to me how your 15,000,000 core some how magically passes through the cool surface and cool photosphere to then magically reappears as a 2,000,000K corona...

[Zaps]

"Actually or no way? which one?"

Internal stellar physics can be and is pretty well understood for the most part, which is why temperatures can be estimated with some certainty. One thing we cannot do is jam a temperature probe into the sun. So yes, we can "know" the internal temperature with some confidence while not being able to directly measure it.

"have a look at the leap of faith required by the fusion core model. etc etc etc"

There is no room for faith in science. Where I see a lot of faith is in the arguments of those desperate to "prove" a pet theory. For example, the 'electric universe' crowd: those guys are like a bunch of Appalachian religious wackos.

You should be careful when pretending to understand how science works, because you'll wind up with egg on your face every time.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

OK here it is again... Empirics: (measured stuff as we go from the outside, towards the center of the sun)
Hot on the outside corona (2,000,000K)
Cooler on the photosphere (10,000ishk)
Cooler again on the surface (6,000k)
Cooler again in the sun-spot holes (3,000k)

and then...
Zap! 15,000,000K!

Come on Zap... fess up... They say they "know" this temperature? Why?

Is it not just inferred from ignition requirements of the original theory that a sustained fusion reaction is required to power the sun? The ignition requirements of a H fusion reaction being around 30,000,000K?

Enlighten me with the details of this science Zap. Leave your ad hom dismissal rant out and your threats.. and address the science.

How does your theoretical 15MK core... jump over a cool surface and reappear as a 2MK corona?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Actually, under normal conditions, it takes 100million K to ignite hydrogen, but inside stars, the pressure and density of the materials allows the gas to ignite at much lower temperatures. The nuclei don't have to be so energetic to overcome the repulsion forces between the nuclei. So, given the pressure and density of the core region of the Sun, the nuclei find that they only have to be heated to around 15million K to be able to sustain the Sun in its present form.

BTW....30million K is near (it's a bit over, actually) the point where core reactions become dominated by the CNO cycle rather than p-p, as in the Sun. It occurs in stars just a tad heavier than the Sun...usually around 1.2M solar.

As a matter of fact, the lowest temp at which nuclear reactions for core burning hydrogen can be sustained is 7million K. The smallest body that can sustain such a temp is around 0.08M solar...or a very small M class star (M9).

The corona is a very thin gas that is heated via magnetic induction and sound. The articles you posted in your 3rd post here pretty much explain how it occurs. It's a combination of several processes which heats the coronal gases, not just one completely dominant process.

Here's a few things for you to read that'll explain it much better than me writing here.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

If there is magnetism, then a current is present, these gas fields by definition/observation are plasma.

How does that follow? If there's (non-static) magnetism then electric fields would also be present, but not necessarily current. That requires charged particles. And if there is current, plasma isn't the only medium or aggregate state that can supply charged particles.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Thanks Carl, Oh yes i'm familiar with the theories presented to date... combinations of convection, conduction and radiation....

To say it's "well understood" is misleading. Coronal heating has no place in a fusion model of the sun... tis why you see the word 'surprise' and 'puzzle'.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...l1/corona.html

The problem is, no one can really explain how this corona exists. Even if the temperature in the core of the Sun does reach 15 million degrees, it drops to a mere 5000 degrees at the surface. The temperature should be even lower farther away from the Sun, but the temperature of the corona is measured at more than a million degrees.

Yes they are now recognizing magnetic field interactions... one would then ask... what causes a magnetic field?

Heres another one for you...
Why is the neutrino flux inversely proportioned to the number of sun spots. That is to say... when there are holes in the surface of the sun, looking into the core... why do we see less neutrinos?

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by Steffen

How does that follow? If there's (non-static) magnetism then electric fields would also be present, but not necessarily current. That requires charged particles. And if there is current, plasma isn't the only medium or aggregate state that can supply charged particles.

Cheers
Steffen.

Hi Steffen... The presence of magnetic field would require a 'change' in electric field. So yes comments where of charge separation, and the change in electric field. M-Fields are not frozen in.

It is this flowing electric change in field (whether carried by electrons and/or ions) is what i was referring to 'electric current'.

Plasma isn't the only medium? I'm not sure what you mean here? Well we need a conductor, i'm happy to roll with plasma, since it's 99.9% of the matter in the universe.... other suggestions? Wire?

Just about every space probe they send out now, has a Langmuir probe on it... to measure this current.

Best,

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

It is this flowing electric change in field (whether carried by electrons and/or ions) is what i was referring to 'electric current'.

Yes, an electromagnetic field can coax charged particles into forming a current, but its mere presence does not mean there is current. Electromagnetic fields happily exist in vacuum where no current is possible.

And yes, electric currents can be formed by free electrons, not just ionised gas (i.e. plasma).

Cheers
Steffen.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Why is the neutrino flux inversely proportioned to the number of sun spots. That is to say... when there are holes in the surface of the sun, looking into the core... why do we see less neutrinos?

That is still a matter open to question...it depends on the statistics. However, there maybe a possibility that the neutrinos are interacting with the solar magnetic fields in some way, or via some other interaction. Basically having the neutrinos change into another type of neutrino or something else entirely. The old Solar Neutrino Problem.

Sunpsots are a surface phenomenon of the Sun's photosphere, they don't open up to any appreciable depth into the Sun's interior...certainly nowhere as far as the core!!

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Yes, an electromagnetic field can coax charged particles into forming a current, but its mere presence does not mean there is current. Electromagnetic fields happily exist in vacuum where no current is possible.

And yes, electric currents can be formed by free electrons, not just ionised gas (i.e. plasma).

can coax a what now?

A magnetic field only exists with a change in the e-field, this change is described as an electric current. This is EM law.

an M field does not just 'exist'... The context of my post was about the magnetic fields detected in the sun...

Where are we going with this steffen? We need a conductor.

Sunpsots are a surface phenomenon of the Sun's photosphere, they don't open up to any appreciable depth into the Sun's interior...certainly nowhere as far as the core!!

Yep... my point exactly.... So why is there a difference in the n-flux when the holes form?

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

A magnetic field only exists with a change in the e-field, this change is described as an electric current. This is EM law.

What you're describing is but one aspect of magnetism. A varying magnetic field is one face of an electromagnetic field (the other side being the varying electric field of course). However, there are also static magnetic fields such as those surrounding a constant electric current, or those surrounding magnetic materials (without any current involved).

an M field does not just 'exist'…

And why not? The magnetic field of a fridge magnet just exists (even if you unplug the fridge )

In any case, my point wasn't about static magnetic (or electric) fields, but about electromagnetic fields that can penetrate space without inducing any current there.

The context of my post was about the magnetic fields detected in the sun…

I thought the context was the galaxy?

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

However, there are also static magnetic fields such as those surrounding a constant electric current, or those surrounding magnetic materials (without any current involved).

There are no static magnetic fields, as you said a current is required. Faraday.

Now your introducing para, dia, ferro magnetism? I do not believe the galaxy is full of fridge magnets. I do not believe it's relevant to the topic to now dive into QM, when it's quite clearly understood that plasma is the conductor.

I'm happy with Galaxy scales... all stars are plasma and all the space between stars are plasma. I'm ok with that.

[Steffen]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

There are no static magnetic fields, as you said a current is required. Faraday.

As I also said, if that current is constant the magnetic field is static.

But I'm happy that you're happy, I was simply responding to some of your statements (which are the bits I quoted for reference).

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

I'm happy we're both happy the currents there to produce that m-field.

Now... lets get back to the why