Oh No...the EU are going to LOVE this!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ent-found.html

They've probably already found it and are salivating over their LCD screens

Astronomers from the University of Toronto have found evidence for an enormous electrical current, being generated by a SMBH (Supermassive Black Hole) in the centre of a galaxy 2billion light years away. The current that they detected is on the order of 10^18 amps, which is lighting up the jet from the centre of the galaxy, out to a distance of 150Kly.

The current is the equivalent of a trillion terrestrial lightening bolts.

This will probably become the poster child for more moronic pronouncements from the sparky clan. Despite the amperage, it still wouldn't be enough to light their collective neural matter's light bulbs

For the real deal....the journal paper is here...http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397

[CraigS]

Hmm .. they've used Faraday Rotation measures in combined radio and X-Ray images and background sources, to isolate the jet's physical parameters (including current).

I like this quote also ..

Being away from a galaxy cluster, it is well suited to an analysis of Faraday rotation measures (RM) within the jet and lobes, since competing Faraday RM variations from an immediate cluster environment and the Galactic foreground are small.

So, the absence of inflowing giant intergalactic Birkeland Currents actually enabled the measurements this time, eh ?

(We're a bit late on this one … they've been at it since last Wednesday …).

Here ya go bojan … a transducer is involved … and it is only 1 to 20% efficient !...

The system evidently needs to have a “transducer” that converts the Poynting energy flux into high energy particles which then produce synchrotron radiation. It is important that the efficiency factor of this conversion is not much different from the gravitational to relativistic magneto-plasma energy conversion efficiency in outer radio lobes (Kronberg, Dufton, Li, & Colgate, 2001). This number varies from ∼ 1% for medium size radio lobes as for 3C303, to ∼ 20% in giant radio sources.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Its interesting … the debate which seems to happening around the various forums stimulated by this article, seems to be about how energy is propagated in a conductor.

Most textbooks say that moving electrons in connecting wires, carry energy around a circuit. It seems that the Poynting flux, the magnitude of which they've deduced from these measurements, is what delivers the energy. The drift current in a conductor is too slow for the the energy to be propagated by moving electrons.

Here's a paper by Ian Sefton of Sydney Uni.

He says …

If you know the density of electrons (the number of conduction electrons per volume of wire), the diameter of the wire and a typical current you can work out how fast the electron sea moves along.
In a typical example of a 1mm copper wire carrying a current of 100 mA the answer turns out to be about 0.01 mm.s-1 which is much slower than a tortoise. If those electrons were picking up energy from the battery and then carrying it all the way to the light globe, you would have to wait an awfully long time to see the globe light up.

Interesting ..

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

I haven't read the paper yet, but it wouldn't surprise at all this is getting big coverage over at EU central and that they went trawling for this once they got a whiff of its existence.

They're probably having "electrogasms" over this

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

...inflowing giant intergalactic Birkeland Currents...

a.k.a Fairy Floss

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I haven't read the paper yet, but it wouldn't surprise at all this is getting big coverage over at EU central and that they went trawling for this once they got a whiff of its existence.

They're probably having "electrogasms" over this

Probably resulting in premature ejaculation (from a grammatical viewpoint.)

[CraigS]

Actually the Sefton paper came from a thread running over at the BAUT Forum … where men are men, and 'EU groupies' get banned !

I had to laugh at their reference to our beloved Alex as 'EU groupie Jarvamundo'
Don't we defend IIS members when they're attacked elsewhere ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Actually the Sefton paper came from a thread running over at the BAUT Forum … where men are men, and 'EU groupies' get banned !

I had to laugh at their reference to our beloved Alex as 'EU groupie Jarvamundo'
Don't we defend IIS members when they're attacked elsewhere ?

Cheers

Well, that's a pretty fair and reasonable description of Sparky

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Its interesting … the debate which seems to happening around the various forums stimulated by this article, seems to be about how energy is propagated in a conductor.

Most textbooks say that moving electrons in connecting wires, carry energy around a circuit. It seems that the Poynting flux, the magnitude of which they've deduced from these measurements, is what delivers the energy. The drift current in a conductor is too slow for the the energy to be propagated by moving electrons.

Interesting ..

Cheers

I find this issue, which arises very frequently around the various forums, to be intriguing … and perplexing at the same time.

My view of the issue of where energy resides in a galactic jet, or in a wire carrying current, resembles the issue of whether light is a particle or a wave. Any, and all is correct because it is an inter-related, multi-variable definition which characterises the behaviours.

The issue seems to be more of a concern for those who seek a mechanical explanation for how the EMF (Electromotive Force) originates and moves from one form to another. Perhaps this would also be of interest to say Alex (Push Grav) as well ?

Thinking through the issue more, leaves me towards querying the reality of a field. From what I've seen, folk who seek a mechanical explanation seem to have great difficulty in accepting a field as real, (any field .. gravitational or EM). If the effect of a given field is capable of being measured, and if it has a direct measurable influence over other measurable matter, then it is real in my book.

Which comes first … the electric field, or the current or … the gravitational field, or the mass .. to me, is kind of like a chicken or egg thing.

Have I read the issue correctly do you think ?

Comments welcome.

Cheers

[avandonk]

Craig nothing is real! We have labels for things we can perceive directly with our limited senses and our brain gives us an interpretation. Then we go and put labels on things we can only perceive indirectly with ever more exotic instruments.

Reality is stranger than we can imagine. The classic double slit experiment showing inteference of light looks quite logical until you only have one photon at a time in the system and the interference pattern is still there.

This has been done with Buckyballs. So a C60 molecule has interfered with itself by going through two slits!

The only conclusion I can draw is nothing is real until it interacts to produce a macro phenomena.

Taken to its logical extreme our conciousness only exists because of lots of fields and particles interact constantly. Stop looking or being looked at and you cease to exist.

Even quantum entanglement is stranger than usual. Here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0624111942.htm


I am going out to play in my observatory before it dissapears. May just check my tinnies in the fridge as well since they seem to dissapear for no known reason.

Bert

[CraigS]

Ahhh .. its 'Biocentric Bert' ! (Just kidding). thanks for that Bert .. I'll have a read of the article .. and do some more thinking and leave you to visit your observatory .. I've seen a picture of that thing, too .. it can't be real from what I've seen !! (Kidding again ..)

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Your tinnies are disappearing, Bert, because of the phantom beer drinkers from Dimension X

They're raiding your fridge

Either that, or the one of you in all those infinite possible realities is taking advantage of superposition and raiding your fridge

[CraigS]

So Bert ..
We are all based on nothing real … and yet we have an effect on things around us (which is measurable) … which makes us real …

Bring on the multi-dimensions of M Theory !!
At least that way, we can perhaps visualise (albeit via mathematics), why things look so strange.

Pity no-one understands it yet though ..

Hilarious ..

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Here's the nature article that the Science Daily report was based upon...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So Bert ..
We are all based on nothing real … and yet we have an effect on things around us (which is measurable) … which makes us real …

Bring on the multi-dimensions of M Theory !!
At least that way, we can perhaps visualise (albeit via mathematics), why things look so strange.

Pity no-one understands it yet though ..

Hilarious ..

Cheers

In time....in time

It's our consciousness which makes it all real by projecting itself into and onto the unreal. Now I'm starting to sound like a Buddhist!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just had a quick read of the article....funny how the news article talks about "quantum magic" because in the Nature article, it shows the representations of the measurements in the article as projected onto 3D space, and guess what....they form a pentagram!!! Now, there's something familiar to anyone who knows anything about the occult and magic

Maybe there is something to it after all

[CraigS]

Thanks Carl .. was reading the abstract but was thwarted by the paywall.

Just once .. only once … would I like for these topics to not end up in philosophy …

Surely there's a region of reality between plain, ordinary ol' Maxwellian physics, and the annoyance and frustration of QM !

Whenever we end up stuck in QM nothing is ever gained .. by any of us !!

For something as basic as what causes an electric current to flow, I would have hoped there was some middle ground.

Then again, I guess there's not much more basic than light, either, eh ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Speaking of the double slit experiment and large molecules, if you had enough time and managed to push a person through the double slits, they too would form an interference pattern. But the time it would take to do this would be inordinately long.

Ouch

So, you could say you have your own individual, personal barcode ID already in your own makeup

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Thanks Carl .. was reading the abstract but was thwarted by the paywall.

Just once .. only once … would I like for these topics to not end up in philosophy …

Surely there's a region of reality between plain, ordinary ol' Maxwellian physics, and the annoyance and frustration of QM !

Whenever we end up stuck in QM nothing is ever gained .. by any of us !!

For something as basic as what causes an electric current to flow, I would have hoped there was some middle ground.

Then again, I guess there's not much more basic than light, either, eh ?

Cheers

You're lucky I have a permanent account at uni

I'm afraid quantum physics and philosophy go hand in hand. It's the nature of the beast because the quantum world and philosophy (or in actual fact, having to deal with consciousness and its nature) are intimately linked.

We have to account for it....I don't find it onerous in the least

What we perceived as being the cause for the flow of electricity was obviously not as comprehensive in it's explanation as we thought it was. In actual fact, it was only ever going to be a classical approximation of a quantum process which we barely understand at this present time.

But how basic is light....it's not as simple as it looks. Is it

[avandonk]

Without the underlying base of chance there would be no US. It would be a totally deterministic Universe without life and boring.

My niece is doing her PhD in quantum computing. She has a MsC in Astrophysics. She is often surprised that an old bloke like me is up with the latest 'magic'.

We used to stand on the shore of an infinite sea. We are now at about knee height. We have a lot to learn before we can swim in this ocean.

Bert