ITN: Primordial Deep Space Magnetic Fields

[bojan]

Yes.. but I am not the problem here.. I know what I know.
The problem is that others don't know what they could know.
And I don't know (sometimes) how to show them what there is to know..

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Yes.. but I am not the problem here.. I know what I know.
The problem is that others don't know what they could know.
And I don't know (sometimes) how to show them what there is to know..

Me, too .. I'm in the same boat

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

You have to be careful about what's being popularised, though. It maybe science, but is it "science"...i.e. does it have any validity in theory and practice or is it just "pie in the sky" speculation being paraded as such. It could still be very fringe but have strong scientific underpinnings. Or it could be just science taken out of context and used to make assumptions about anything and everything the originator of the speculation may care to take up.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's why some go off in a huff and start publishing it anywhere they can get away with it...usually in the less stringent journals and the popular press, or they publish it as their own book or create a journal of their own, like Aeon and the JIDS (Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies).

Well, we are all just people.
Some take this harder, some don't.

I am sure that harsh rejection is not always productive, like you are saying.
Those who reject are also just people, with their pet ideas..
But they are already there, in their positions.
And that is sometimes hard to swallow for some individuals, so they react in a neurotic ways.. Heels in the ground approach. Not scientific behaviour, but very human actually..

[renormalised (Carl)]

Hmmm....so it's a case of you know what you know, but they don't know what they could or should know and you don't know how to show them what they should or could know and they just don't know how to know what it is they should or could or maybe would know if they only did know what you know

(I sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby!!!!!)

(Or Bernard)

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You have to be careful about what's being popularised, though. It maybe science

I had the proper science popularisation in mind.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Well, we are all just people.
Some take this harder, some don't.

I am sure that harsh rejection is not always productive, like you are saying.
Those who reject are also just people, with their pet ideas..
But they are already there, in their positions.
And that is sometimes hard to swallow for some individuals, so they react in a neurotic ways.. Heels in the ground approach. Not scientific behaviour, but very human actually..

Its gotta have a lot to do with tolerance !

Difficult to achieve in a busy workplace, thesedays .. but it's got to be there to avoid the problem it creates.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Its gotta have a lot to do with tolerance !

Difficult to achieve in a busy workplace, thesedays .. but it's got to be there to avoid the problem it creates.

Exactly right.
Otherwise, you are just sending sheep into a lion's den.
And, at the end of the day, there will be no-one in your own camp to provide support (finance.. ). Pseudo-science may prevail...

(have a look at what is going on with Aussie space program in another thread...)

[renormalised (Carl)]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do know of quite a few instances where the treatment of those before the review committees has been rather bad and unfair. Getting that first couple of papers passed can make or break careers and sometimes the reviewers can be too critical, for whatever reason. But in many cases, they are valid in their rejections because sometimes things just don't add up. If they accepted every paper and idea that came to their attention, no questions asked or just gave them a cursory inspection, then science would be mired in garbage and nothing would get done.

[CraigS]

I've read some rejections from publications (albeit from Medical journals .. directed at fully fledged Doctors/researchers/applicants).

They didn't contain anything other than .. "Not at this time" … "insufficient reviewer resources", etc, etc.

Politeness needs accompanying justification to be meaningful. I didn't see it in these rejection letters.

Cheers

PS: This is not a complete sample, however.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Oh, don't get me wrong. I do know of quite a few instances where the treatment of those before the review committees has been rather bad and unfair.

Don't worry, I don't..
I just wanted to add something to overall balance of things.
I am fully aware that review process is OK in majority of cases.

[Outbackmanyep]

I came across this little piece, i bet you any money that EU will take this as their weapon of choice.
It's very interesting and is a result of scientific methods for real science:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/berlin0...tions/beck.pdf

Not a mention of Perratt, Alfven, Thornhill etc

[CraigS]

So, coming back to the Peratt/Healy paper, I still reckon I'd like to see what became of that 'thread' before dismissing the whole thing outright.

After I find out what happens .. then I'll dismiss it outright !!

Sorry Alex ..

Cheers
PS: Sorry outbackmanyep .. I'll have a read of what you sent, shortly. Cheers.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Outbackmanyep

I came across this little piece, i bet you any money that EU will take this as their weapon of choice.
It's very interesting and is a result of scientific methods for real science:
http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/berlin0...tions/beck.pdf

Not a mention of Perratt, Alfven, Thornhill etc

What's the date on this presentation ? Is there a paper underpinning it ?(ie: that we can read ?)

One of the last slides summarises the presentation nicely. (Authors are: Rainer Beck, Bryan Gaensler, Luigina Ferretti):

- Early primordial fields could have been generated by battery effects, during inflation or phase transitions;
- A primordial intergalactic (IGM) field may have regulated structure formation in the early Universe;
- Present-day fields of B ≥ 1 μG could have evolved from B0 approx 10∧-9 to 10∧-10 G primordial seed fields at z > 5 by compression and dynamo action;
- Upper limits of intergalactic fields from existing studies: B(IGM)< 10∧-8 to -9 G (model dependent).

Very interesting …

Thanks, Outbackmanyep.

Worthwhile following up on that one.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

If you want, Craig, I can give you Bryan's email and you can ask him directly

[CraigS]

Just found it: "Magnetism in Nearby Galaxies, Prospects with the SKA, and Synergies with the E-ELT", 10 -14 May 2010.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Got the paper...still want the email??

[CraigS]

Apologies if everyone's lost interest in the original topic .. I haven't .. so, to punish all involved even more .. here's the Abstract of the below newly found paper:

Abstract. Radio synchrotron emission, its polarization and its Faraday rotation are powerful tools to study the strength and structure of interstellar magnetic fields. In the Milky Way, the total field strength is about 6 μG near the Sun and 50–100 μG near the Galactic Center. Faraday rotation of the polarized emission from pulsars and background sources indicate that the regular field follows the spiral arms and has one reversal inside the solar radius, but the overall field structure in our Galaxy is still unclear. In nearby galaxies, turbulent fields are strongest in spiral arms and bars (20–30 μG) and in central starburst regions (50–100 μG). Ordered fields with spiral structure exist in grand-design, barred and flocculent galaxies. The strongest ordered fields (10–15 μG) are found in interarm regions. Faraday rotation of the diffuse polarized radio emission from the disks of spiral galaxies sometimes reveals large-scale patterns, which are signatures of regular fields generated by a mean-field dynamo. Ordered magnetic fields are also observed in radio halos around edge-on galaxies, out to large distances from the plane, with X-shaped patterns. – The SKA and its precursor telescopes will open a new era in the observation of cosmic magnetic fields and help to understand their origin. The SKA will map interstellar fields in nearby galaxies in unprecedented detail. All-sky surveys of Faraday rotation measures (RM) towards a dense grid of polarized background sources with the ASKAP (POSSUM), MeerKAT and the SKA are dedicated to measure fields in intervening galaxies and will be used to model the overall structure and strength of the magnetic fields in the Milky Way and beyond. Examples for joint polarimetric observations between the SKA and the E-ELT are given.

So, some more field strengths given inside the arms, central starburst regions, interarm regions and Faraday rotation etc.

All good stuff !

Cheers
PS: Detention will be held after the school bell !

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Their whole premise for the mechanism behind pulsars (EM interactions in close binary systems) is so easy to shoot down it's not funny. Simple observation of these objects is enough to make their ideas a laughing stock. For one, most pulsars are single objects and that is observationally verifiable, whether the pulsar is part of a remnant or not. If they were close binaries, where's the spectroscopic evidence, let alone evidence from light curve/photometric and astrometric analysis. There is none and never has been. The EU/PC crowd seem to forget about these glaringly obvious astrophysical questions and just assume that their assumptions are correct despite all the evidence and observations to the contrary.

Absolute sheer nonsense.

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~drl/publications/clf+00.pdf

We have used a new observing system on the Parkes radio telescope to carry out a series of pulsar observations of the globular cluster 47 Tucanae at 20 cm wavelength. We detected all 11 previously known pulsars and have discovered nine others, all of which are millisecond pulsars in binary systems

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Got the paper...still want the email??

Are you trying to get out of detention ??