Missing Mass Discovered

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Arpian...yes, but I think you mean Hannes Alfven, Craig. He's the guy that the EU seem to think is God...everyone else is wrong according to them.

Yep .. (oops) .. too much goin' round in my head at the moment !!

Thanks for the correction.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. so coming back to the original research topic, there are some issues I feel somewhat confronted about. In keeping with my goal of remaining open-minded, I think an adjustment of my thinking about intergalactic fields and currents etc, needs altering in the light of this 'discovery/evidence.

So, here goes:

i) Primordial intergalactic magnetic fields exist. They stretch over huge distances, and are very weak in terms of flux densities;

ii) Plasmas and ionised gases, (in differing states of ionisation), get caught up in these fields. The intersection of one or more of these fields may influence the initial formation of this matter, aggregating it into various 'odd' shapes which may then go on to form galaxies or stars, etc. The simultaneous localised 'clumping' of dark matter, would have to occur once the ionised mass acquires sufficient concentrated mass, and ultimately self-organises into halos. This would happen once the ionised matter itself, acquires sufficient matter density to pull itself into the classical spherical shape, (the hallmark of gravitational attraction).

I can see no reason why electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields wouldn't continue to influence the initial formation stages (and perhaps, subsequent stages), of the baryonic (ionised) 'matter'.

iii) A paper referenced in Amelia Fraser-McKelvie etal's original paper (by Kawahara et al, Jan 2011), focuses on observations of a merging group of galaxies at one of these intergalactic filamentary junctions. In the abstract and introduction, they keenly point out:

The observation of a galaxy group showing multiple X-ray peaks and a hot spot at the same time is rare and we believe in particular that the study of Suzaku J1552+2739 potentially presents a significant interest to better understand the dynamical and thermal evolution of the intragroup and intracluster medium, as well as its relation with surrounding environment.

So, it would seem that they are looking at something of an anomaly, so it would be highly speculative to say that all galaxies are formed at the junction of intergalactic filaments. (Probably easy to disprove such an assertion).

iv) Amelia etal, stated that:

'Filaments are expected to be detected at X-ray wavelengths via thermal bremmstrahlung emission, although some of the first detections have been made by observing 0.65 keV O line in absorption or emission.'

So, it should be noted that if one were to attempt to make an EU type case, one should be looking for evidence of giant intergalactic plasma using these detection methods. (Let's not use the "BC" term … ie: "Birkeland Currents").

My purpose behind this post, is mainly for me to clarify my understanding (as it stands today) of what is actually a reasonably supportable perspective on the likely Astrophysical process for which evidence exists .. without being particularly bound up in 'gravity dogma' (a label which I vigorously dispute), or EU nonsense (a term easily demonstrated).

Corrections/feedback requested, kindly.

Cheers
PS: I've 'squirted' this one out in a hurry as I notice IIS is about to go offline. I will make corrections if I've blooped anywhere .. later.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I've just figured out the hierarchy of the EU Universe and the relationships between the players

1. Primal Source: GOD (Hannes Alfven)
2. Archangels: Rocky and Bullwinkle (Peratt and Lerner)
3. Menial Worker Beings: Dick Dastardly, Muttley and The Gruesome Twosome (Don Scott and Co)
4. The Great Unwashed of Disciples: (Sparky and his mates)

[CraigS]

PS: I notice that TBolts, perhaps coincidentally, has commenced a thread which parallels this one.

It might be interesting to see the differences in views, as both threads proceed.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

PS: I notice that TBolts, perhaps coincidentally, has commenced a thread which parallels this one.

It might be interesting to see the differences in views, as both threads proceed.

Their whole thread will be a joke, from start to finish.

Edit: Just read their posts...ignorant idiots.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Their whole thread will be a joke, from start to finish.

So lets make a better one !

Cheers

[bojan]

Guys...
Instead of putting ourselves in a position to be accused as dismissive and exclusive and orthodox

Their whole thread will be a joke, from start to finish

let's be more analytical and disprove EU nonsense by demonstrating WHY and where exactly it is nonsense. This will result in much better reception from people on this forum, that can't make up their minds, for whatever reason.
I tried to use this approach in dealing with some people in the past and while I don't think that this was the only reason why that particular person is absent from this forum, I feel it was highly effective [still no answer to my question "why pulsars (if they are indeed relaxation oscillators) are so precise"].

So... yes, lets make a better thread.

[renormalised (Carl)]

I agree, that's what we should do.

Bojan, you'll never get an answer to that question. They have no way of providing it.

[CraigS]

So does anyone agree/disagree with anything I wrote in my post #42 ?

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I can see no reason why electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields wouldn't continue to influence the initial formation stages (and perhaps, subsequent stages), of the baryonic (ionised) 'matter'.

Well.. EM fields will stop to be a factor when ionised plasma recombines (de-ionises).
From this moment, magnetic field is "disconnected" from (baryonic) matter.. and gravity takes over.
IMHO, of course... just gut feeling.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Well.. EM fields will stop to be a factor when ionised plasma recombines (de-ionises).
From this moment, magnetic field is "disconnected" from (baryonic) matter.. and gravity takes over.
IMHO, of course... just gut feeling.

Well, the Sun continues to generate its own EM fields when things heat up. Gravity is doing its thing there also, (clearly). So both must exist simultaneously in that particular process. Gravity may have little/no effect where a plasma is distributed, but in this instance, the plasma might also still be following these primordial fields in deep space environments.

The initial primordial fields could still continue on their merry way, also. I don't think these fields are necessarily caused by moving plasmas but they seem to trap free plasmas. These fields seem to be referred to as: 'always have existed, and will continue to exist' by mainstream papers (??)

Both of the fields mentioned in paras 1 & 2 could be thought of as separate from the EM fields set up in Birkeland currents, which might happen around highly magnetic objects, already possessing intense fields. Which cause acceleration and intense Bremstralung & Synchrotron radiation, (etc), (which could be detected from Earth).

(Just trying to separate the different 'fields' here .. I think what I'm saying may be supported in the mainstream literature I've read so far.

Another thing also, electrostatic forces seem to be cited as playing roles in pulling together dusty aggregates. I can see this assisting the planetary clumping process (before gravity kicks in).

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Another thing also, electrostatic forces seem to be cited as playing roles in pulling together dusty aggregates. I can see this assisting the planetary clumping process (before gravity kicks in).

Cheers

Hmm.. overall plasma electrical charge is nil (since plasma is highly conductive... it actually has negative resistance (higher the current, lover the voltage drop) apart from local variations.
It is different situation if we have already neutral (and charged to some extent) particles.
This charge (re-ionization) may come from radiation from nearby stars perhaps.. but this means all the particles will be of same charge.. so repulsive force will be in action.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

That is unlikely.. overall plasma electrical charge is nil (since plasma is highly conductive... it actually has negative resistance (higher the current, lover the voltage drop) apart from local variations.
It is different situation if we have already neutral particles

Yep to what you say about plasmas.

No - when it comes to planet formation .. I wasn't clear (my fault) … the planetary formation process still involves electrostatic forces (eg: attraction of cold dust to H2O molecules .. or even dust-to-dust attraction), which starts the matter 'clumping' process (before gravity can take hold) .

Strictly speaking though, you're right .. this is really a different topic from plasmas.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok .. so coming back to the original research topic, there are some issues I feel somewhat confronted about. In keeping with my goal of remaining open-minded, I think an adjustment of my thinking about intergalactic fields and currents etc, needs altering in the light of this 'discovery/evidence.

So, here goes:

i) Primordial intergalactic magnetic fields exist. They stretch over huge distances, and are very weak in terms of flux densities;

That's a given, nothing out of the box.

Originally Posted by CraigS

ii) Plasmas and ionised gases, (in differing states of ionisation), get caught up in these fields. The intersection of one or more of these fields may influence the initial formation of this matter, aggregating it into various 'odd' shapes which may then go on to form galaxies or stars, etc. The simultaneous localised 'clumping' of dark matter, would have to occur once the ionised mass acquires sufficient concentrated mass, and ultimately self-organises into halos. This would happen once the ionised matter itself, acquires sufficient matter density to pull itself into the classical spherical shape, (the hallmark of gravitational attraction).

I can see no reason why electrical, magnetic and gravitational fields wouldn't continue to influence the initial formation stages (and perhaps, subsequent stages), of the baryonic (ionised) 'matter'.

Yes, but there is a big problem with that. That's the general weakness of those fields plus the actual mechanisms by which a galaxy forms. You have to take into account the formation of the central black hole, the bulge and its relationship with the BH and then you have to account for the spiral arms (if it's a spiral galaxy), the morphologies of ellipticals and the general haphazard formation of irregulars. Galaxy formation is not a simple cloud---collapse---galaxy scenario. There are many factors which determine what type of galaxy is going to form and then you also have the question of what came first, the central BH or the galaxy.

Now, given how weak the intergalactic EM fields are, you have to come up with a convincing mechanism in which fields that weak can clump together and drive the initial stages of galaxy formation. Even if it's just streaming gases into the nodes where filaments meet, you have to work out what rate of gas flow will occur in fields of such low strength. Not only that, given that the gases within these filaments are at high temps and the gravity in any one area of the clumps is weak because of the low density, you'd expect the high velocity of the particles would prevent the gas/plasma from clumping. In which case, no galaxy formation via clumping due to intrinsic EM fields will occur. Something else has to allow the plasma to clump and begin to coalesce. Where, the EM fields may play a part is in magnetic reconnection. The resistance between bilayers due to opposing currents could conceivably slow the flow of plasmas down and initially cool them (radiative heat transfer/induction and/or mixing mechanisms). That would allow the gases/plasma to clump together and then gravity would do the rest. Once those clumps became large enough, the EMF's would play a secondary role to gravity. It would also be where the initial fields of the galaxies came from as well. Plotting the strength and the morphology of those fields may help to give clues as to how each galaxy formed, along with the usual factors such as rate of star formation, initial rotation dynamics, gas composition etc etc.

The dark matter would appear to be unaffected by the EMF's, so clumping of the dark matter is independent of whether there's one there or not. However, the clumping of the DM would effect the clumping of baryonic matter, so you have to devise a mechanism which allows DM to begin clumping. When you look at the Standard Model, you can see that the galaxy, which form the superclusters, also appear to be congregating in response to higher than normal densities of DM...in those spots. In other words, the DM is allowing baryonic matter to clump together to form galaxies and superclusters of galaxies, acting as a gravitational "glue" which holds them together.

Originally Posted by CraigS

iii) A paper referenced in Amelia Fraser-McKelvie etal's original paper (by Kawahara et al, Jan 2011), focuses on observations of a merging group of galaxies at one of these intergalactic filamentary junctions. In the abstract and introduction, they keenly point out:

So, it would seem that they are looking at something of an anomaly, so it would be highly speculative to say that all galaxies are formed at the junction of intergalactic filaments. (Probably easy to disprove such an assertion).

Galaxies may just as easily form outside the junctions of filaments as in them, depending on what's happening within the filaments. And that's what appears to be the case. However, given that the highest concentration of mass is at the filament junctions, you would expect a higher, a priori, chance for a galaxy to form at the filament junctions as it would elsewhere. Or, at least, the formation of a supercluster to occur there, if not the galaxies themselves. Once the galaxies form, the increasing mass of the supercluster forming at the node may draw the galaxies in from the filament, where they have formed, to the node where the emerging supercluster resides.

Originally Posted by CraigS

iv) Amelia etal, stated that:


So, it should be noted that if one were to attempt to make an EU type case, one should be looking for evidence of giant intergalactic plasma using these detection methods. (Let's not use the "BC" term … ie: "Birkeland Currents").

You can't escape from using the BC term. I would be inherent in the plasmas. However, it ultimately depends on just how dense the plasmas are and whether they are able to carry any current at all. On the scales that we're talking about, and what has been observed, you're talking about plasma densities so small and EM fields so weak that there's barely enough there to detect, let alone drive a current through. Only for the fact that it's on such a large scale, you would never detect them. There's most certainly no BC there simply because the Xray and such that are being given off by these filaments is come from Bremmstrahlung...the electrons are literally neutralising themselves by colliding with the tenuous gases that are there. BC's require free and uninterrupted current flow along the EM lines. Once reconnection occurs or the electrons collide with other particles in the plasma, the current dumps itself and converts into light and heat. It stops flowing...there's no mysterious, undetectable "dark current" occurring. In any case, for a current to flow you need to have two opposite charge polarised ends to a circuit. In the case of an intergalactic sized filament of plasma, those two charged ends would stick out like sore thumbs observationally. They've never been found.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's a given, nothing out of the box.

Cool.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, but there is a big problem with that. That's the general weakness of those fields plus the actual mechanisms by which a galaxy forms. You have to take into account the formation of the central black hole, the bulge and its relationship with the BH and then you have to account for the spiral arms (if it's a spiral galaxy), the morphologies of ellipticals and the general haphazard formation of irregulars. Galaxy formation is not a simple cloud---collapse---galaxy scenario. There are many factors which determine what type of galaxy is going to form and then you also have the question of what came first, the central BH or the galaxy.

Agreed. But these issues remain, regardless of what may, or may not have, started the process. I think my point is that DM clumping, and all the fundamental forces must play a role during the initial phases. So just because EM forces may/may not have played some role, doesn't mean that gravity is out of the picture. Its a complex process.
(Captain Chaos strikes again ! )

Originally Posted by renormalised

Now, given how weak the intergalactic EM fields are, you have to come up with a convincing mechanism in which fields that weak can clump together and drive the initial stages of galaxy formation. Even if it's just streaming gases into the nodes where filaments meet, you have to work out what rate of gas flow will occur in fields of such low strength. Not only that, given that the gases within these filaments are at high temps and the gravity in any one area of the clumps is weak because of the low density, you'd expect the high velocity of the particles would prevent the gas/plasma from clumping. In which case, no galaxy formation via clumping due to intrinsic EM fields will occur. Something else has to allow the plasma to clump and begin to coalesce. Where, the EM fields may play a part is in magnetic reconnection. The resistance between bilayers due to opposing currents could conceivably slow the flow of plasmas down and initially cool them (radiative heat transfer/induction and/or mixing mechanisms).

Wouldn't the temperatures go up if the resistance increases (more collisions) ? I've imagined (by reading somewhere ?) that the cooling effects you mention do occur, but would kind of be secondary in terms of overall effect ? (Only a minor point here). As I mentioned above, all of this must play some part as it all comes together. The details are still being sorted through in models, I would think.

Originally Posted by renormalised

That would allow the gases/plasma to clump together and then gravity would do the rest. Once those clumps became large enough, the EMF's would play a secondary role to gravity. It would also be where the initial fields of the galaxies came from as well. Plotting the strength and the morphology of those fields may help to give clues as to how each galaxy formed, along with the usual factors such as rate of star formation, initial rotation dynamics, gas composition etc etc.

Yep - this POSSUM project was supposed to be attempting a new EM map of the universe. They've been quiet for almost a year, now. ??

Originally Posted by renormalised

The dark matter would appear to be unaffected by the EMF's, so clumping of the dark matter is independent of whether there's one there or not. However, the clumping of the DM would effect the clumping of baryonic matter, so you have to devise a mechanism which allows DM to begin clumping. When you look at the Standard Model, you can see that the galaxy, which form the superclusters, also appear to be congregating in response to higher than normal densities of DM...in those spots. In other words, the DM is allowing baryonic matter to clump together to form galaxies and superclusters of galaxies, acting as a gravitational "glue" which holds them together.

Yep. I wonder why DM ends up as a 'halo' and not a solid 'sphere' (like baryonic matter) ? (It probably does but I haven't seen this idea turn up yet in the DM maps of the '(un)observable' universe) ...
I recall your questioning the shape of the models used in developing the rotation curves. Perhaps as they get onto more complex models, this 'halo' shape might become less popular (perhaps attributable to this) ?

Originally Posted by renormalised

Galaxies may just as easily form outside the junctions of filaments as in them, depending on what's happening within the filaments. And that's what appears to be the case. However, given that the highest concentration of mass is at the filament junctions, you would expect a higher, a priori, chance for a galaxy to form at the filament junctions as it would elsewhere. Or, at least, the formation of a supercluster to occur there, if not the galaxies themselves. Once the galaxies form, the increasing mass of the supercluster forming at the node may draw the galaxies in from the filament, where they have formed, to the node where the emerging supercluster resides.

… and then they get ejected .. resulting in quantised redshifts with unmatching redshifts associated with the filaments obviously connecting them !! (Just kidding .. gotta have some fun!).
But, yep …
The CMBR map, and the theory about where the baryonic matter cooled and formed superclusters takes all this back in time too, eh ?. Things may have moved around a bit since then, so a galaxy appearing at the cross-roads of two present-day filaments, isn't really all that exciting when coming from the idea that it all started from the structure in the CMBR patterns.

Originally Posted by renormalised

You can't escape from using the BC term. I would be inherent in the plasmas. However, it ultimately depends on just how dense the plasmas are and whether they are able to carry any current at all. On the scales that we're talking about, and what has been observed, you're talking about plasma densities so small and EM fields so weak that there's barely enough there to detect, let alone drive a current through. Only for the fact that it's on such a large scale, you would never detect them. There's most certainly no BC there simply because the Xray and such that are being given off by these filaments is come from Bremmstrahlung...the electrons are literally neutralising themselves by colliding with the tenuous gases that are there. BC's require free and uninterrupted current flow along the EM lines. Once reconnection occurs or the electrons collide with other particles in the plasma, the current dumps itself and converts into light and heat. It stops flowing...there's no mysterious, undetectable "dark current" occurring. In any case, for a current to flow you need to have two opposite charge polarised ends to a circuit. In the case of an intergalactic sized filament of plasma, those two charged ends would stick out like sore thumbs observationally. They've never been found.

Yes and hmm ..
I would think BCs must form once the gases start to aggregate around the primordial (intersecting) fields. Collisions will occur and things slow down, heat up, reconnections, charge separation, EM fields containing the plasmas etc.
Prior to them getting up to noticeable strength however, they still emit Bremmstrahlung and X-Rays. If I'm not mistaken this is exactly how they detected them in this study !?!
The paper says:

This paper presents a comprehensive large-scale search conducted for X-ray emission from a population of 41 bona fide filaments of galaxies to determine their X-ray flux and electron density.

These were detected by the means I mentioned. I don't think we can say that they don't exist any more. This paper says they have been detected in the ROSAT All-Sky and the 2dFGRS surveys. There is some doubt that some potential candidates may have been discarded from these initial studies (they started out with some 805 candidates originally and this got paired down to a mere 41).

I think Amelia et al, are suggesting that some may have been overlooked because of discards (due to smaller box sizes) used in the earlier analysis techniques).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Remember, Craig, all the good stuff they've detected occurs when the BC's breakdown because of reconnection and neutralisation of the the ionic plasmas. The BC's would only exist so long as the plasma remained ionised and a free path exists for the electrons/charge to flow, otherwise it just becomes a super thin cloud of hot neutral gas.

[renormalised (Carl)]

In any case, it's not even really "missing mass". It's more a case of overlooked mass that wasn't considered beforehand because they didn't really look for it...or their sampling analysis techniques weren't able to resolve the mass.

You could tell from the way the wallies over at TB waffled on about "missing mass" and "only gravity" that they not only didn't understand what the paper was on about, but also that they hadn't a clue about the science in the first place. Show's you what happens when a mob of "armchair experts" thinks it knows what it's talking about. Even the armchair they're sitting in is riddled with termites

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Remember, Craig, all the good stuff they've detected occurs when the BC's breakdown because of reconnection and neutralisation of the the ionic plasmas. The BC's would only exist so long as the plasma remained ionised and a free path exists for the electrons/charge to flow, otherwise it just becomes a super thin cloud of hot neutral gas.

I can't see what you're saying here Carl.

They went out looking for what they call the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM). This was theoretically predicted to exist, and there has been a lot of theoretical development done in order to select very specific detection technologies at certain redshifts and temperatures. At the higher temperatures, clearly this 'baryonic' matter (ie: gas) is ionised and may as well be referred to as 'plasma'.

Some of the papers I've read on the spectroscopic side, I do not understand. But I can see that they've considered many different mixes of ionised plasma and neutral gases before looking for these filaments.

I am not yet able to understand the fundamental differences between plasmas in a Birkeland Current, and one of these filaments (which they've now detected). I'm not sure there are any differences.

I guess it all comes down to one's definition of the plasma-at-hand and the generalised term 'Birkeland Current' plasma.

It begins to look like this may be where some of the confusion lies.

Until someone can tell me where I've gone astray, I still maintain that Amelia et al, have detected intergalactic filaments which could also be referred to as, (unfortunately), 'giant intergalactic Birkeland Currents', and they appear to persist for very long periods of time.



Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

In any case, it's not even really "missing mass". It's more a case of overlooked mass that wasn't considered beforehand because they didn't really look for it...or their sampling analysis techniques weren't able to resolve the mass.

You could tell from the way the wallies over at TB waffled on about "missing mass" and "only gravity" that they not only didn't understand what the paper was on about, but also that they hadn't a clue about the science in the first place. Show's you what happens when a mob of "armchair experts" thinks it knows what it's talking about. Even the armchair they're sitting in is riddled with termites

I found a great paper which goes into the detection methods for low redshift Baryons. In the abstract, it says:

The baryon content of the universe is known from Big Bang nucleosynthesis and cosmic microwave background considerations, yet at low redshift, only about one-tenth of these baryons lie in galaxies or the hot gas seen in galaxy clusters and groups. Models posit that these “missing baryons” are in gaseous form in overdense filaments that connect the much denser virialized groups and clusters.

I have a feeling this defines the term 'missing'. In a nutshell, it was predicted, but not found. It was thus 'missing'. Amelia et al are on the path of finding it.

I'm not sure I understand fully what the paper is on about yet … and I'm only an 'armchair amateur' ! Its very complicated because of the need for a detailed knowledge of the spectroscopic side of it.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I can't see what you're saying here Carl.

They went out looking for what they call the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM). This was theoretically predicted to exist, and there has been a lot of theoretical development done in order to select very specific detection technologies at certain redshifts and temperatures. At the higher temperatures, clearly this 'baryonic' matter (ie: gas) is ionised and may as well be referred to as 'plasma'.

Some of the papers I've read on the spectroscopic side, I do not understand. But I can see that they've considered many different mixes of ionised plasma and neutral gases before looking for these filaments.

I am not yet able to understand the fundamental differences between plasmas in a Birkeland Current, and one of these filaments (which they've now detected). I'm not sure there are any differences.

I guess it all comes down to one's definition of the plasma-at-hand and the generalised term 'Birkeland Current' plasma.

It begins to look like this may be where some of the confusion lies.

Until someone can tell me where I've gone astray, I still maintain that Amelia et al, have detected intergalactic filaments which could also be referred to as, (unfortunately), 'giant intergalactic Birkeland Currents', and they appear to persist for very long periods of time.



Cheers

A BC needs to have free electrons and a free path i.e. no interference by other particles, for the current to flow. They (the electrons) can be masked by acting as a cloud around the other particles but the moment any of the electrons collide with the particles in the plasma, that's it. The plasma becomes a neutral gas (or only partially ionised). The current breaks down and the collisions generate bremmstrahlung and whatever else.

The plasmas in a BC are fully ionised and the free electrons can either travel masked or free of the other particles....basically, just like battery, the charges separate and the electrical current flow, when it occurs, happens in the same way as occurs in a battery. The masked version is basically what they call the dark current. When the EM field sweeps through the plasma and the separation of charge in the atoms of the gas occurs, it basically acts much like what happens in photodiodes or CCD's (which are a type of photodiode anyway) where random electrons are generated as well as holes left over from their generation. Charges moves as one electron fills the hole left vacated by the electron that was removed by the field. It's a cascade effect, if you will. In the case of BC, fully ionising the plasma creates two poles of differing polarities and charge flows between those poles, or from the charge to the neutral ground (in Earth's case, the upper atmosphere). When they travel in a masked fashion, the velocity vectors of both the electrons and the rest of the plasma is the same, so there is no net movement between them. Once the velocity vector of either changes, the particles collide and the charge breaks down, the plasma neutralises and you get the accompanying radiation being given off.

What we have in these filaments is a super thin partially ionised hot gas. It's so thin that the electrons rarely encounter other particles in their immediate vicinity. However, over the distances that are seen in these filaments, the plasmas virtually become opaque to the electrons, so their chances of colliding with another particle becomes quite high. Whilst they can move around at high speed, hence the temperature of the plasma being high, they can't go on indefinitely without colliding with another particle. Hence, over the distances that the filaments cover, there is little or no separation of charge to effect any current flow, despite the filament being mainly a hot plasma and/or neutral gas. The electrons collide within the filament with the rest of the particles and give off Xrays etc.

The plasmas are so thinly spread, in fact, they might as well not even be there. They make the thinnest plasmas we can produce here in labs look like solid lead. When you read values like 10^-4 to 10^-7 electrons per cubic metre, that equates to about 1 electron every 10-100 cubic kilometres or even less. Can't generate too many amps in a conductor that sparse of charges Even on an intergalactic scale.