Yes. Its certainly confusing from the outset. Very tiny amounts of plasma mixed in with ionised gas is a pretty weak argument for the claim that 99%, (by volume), of the universe is made from plasma (a claim made early on).
So, can the presence of this 1% of plasma be detected ?
Quote:
The vast regions of nearly neutral hydrogen (HI regions) found in the Galaxy and other galaxies are weakly ionized plasmas. These regions extend across the entire width of the galaxy and are sometimes found between interacting galaxies. They are detected by the 21 cm radiation they emit.
Carl mentioned to me that: 'the 21 cm line line is not due to some plasma state of the gas, it's caused by the spin flip of the electron in the hydrogen atom'.
So, it seems that even Peratt's method of detecting plasma is not one for detecting plasma properties at all.
He then goes on to mix up the presence of magnetic fields with it all. The implication being that magnetic fields are caused by either; large moving plasmas or; by moving intrinsic magnetic fields interacting with the 'weakly' ionised gases (having 1% plasma). I find it very difficult to work out whether he's using the presence magnetic fields as evidence for the volumes of plasma, or not.
Yes. Its certainly confusing from the outset. Very tiny amounts of plasma mixed in with ionised gas is a pretty weak argument for the claim that 99%, (by volume), of the universe is made from plasma (a claim made early on).
So, can the presence of this 1% of plasma be detected ?
Yes in the form of synchroton radiation. But there lies the weakness in the Peratt's galaxy forming model through Birkeland currents.
Synchroton radiation extends into the radio wave spectrum. Therefore galaxies formed through this mechanism should be able to emit radio waves.
Radio wave emissions however are an exclusive property of elliptical galaxies.
Yes in the form of synchroton radiation. But there lies the weakness in the Peratt's galaxy forming model through Birkeland currents.
Synchroton radiation extends into the radio wave spectrum. Therefore galaxies formed through this mechanism should be able to emit radio waves.
Radio wave emissions however are an exclusive property of elliptical galaxies.
Regards
Steven
On synchrotron radiation (Section 4.1, page 123) he says:
Quote:
Essentially three types of spectra are found. Names such as cyclotron emission and magnetobremsstrahlung are used to describe the emission from nonrelativistic and mildly relativistic electron energies, whereas the name synchrotron radiation is traditionally reserved for highly relativistic electrons because it was first observed in 1948 in electron synchrotons
So, it would seem from this that not all plasmas exhibit synchroton radiation .. only 'highly relativistic electron emissions' ? (I'm not using his arguments to defend rather, I'm questioning what he's said here).
So, it would seem from this that not all plasmas exhibit synchroton radiation .. only 'highly relativistic electron emissions' ? (I'm not using his arguments to defend rather, I'm questioning what he's said here).
Seems to be another dissection of Plasma types ..
Cheers
True but in the context of what our EU friends claim about plasma double layers, large potential drops and layer separation occuring on a cosmic scale, charged particles are accelerated to near the speed of light and should therefore exhibit synchroton radiation.
The issue here is that elliptical galaxies and spiral galaxies are formed under the Peratt mechanism, so why is it that Ellipticals only exhibit synchroton radiation and spirals do not?
If the Birkeland currents carry charged particles at random energies then the formation of ellipticals and spirals via Birkeland currents should result in the random distribution of synchroton radiation in both ellipticals and spirals.
Yes in the form of synchroton radiation. But there lies the weakness in the Peratt's galaxy forming model through Birkeland currents.
Synchroton radiation extends into the radio wave spectrum. Therefore galaxies formed through this mechanism should be able to emit radio waves.
Radio wave emissions however are an exclusive property of elliptical galaxies.
Regards
Steven
That's not correct in the way it's worded but I know what you mean here. The degree to which the very powerful, nuclear region, radio wave emissions occur are mostly seen in elliptical galaxies, as the centres of these galaxies are, in many cases, highly active areas. However, we also have quite a few spirals which show very similar activity....Seyfert Galaxies, for instance (but most of these are not radio loud, unlike the ellipticals).
However, you are right about the weakness of Perrat's thesis. If the galaxies were the result of galactic scale Birkeland currents and strong confining magnetic fields, there'd be synchrotron radiation everywhere. Every galaxy would be radio bright and their centres would be quasar like. There's no evidence for this at all. Then you have the implications of all this radiation and its impact on life bearing planets. Not only that, all that radiation would, in fact, prevent the formation of stars, as it would heat the gas and dust to such a degree that the clouds of dust and gas would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve their Jeans mass and undergo collapse. The magnetic fields themselves would act to prevent it, especially fields as strong as proposed by Perrat and Scott.
Last edited by renormalised; 05-10-2010 at 10:56 AM.
And here's another furphy of the EU crowd....all these galaxies and such are lined up along these extragalactic current filaments that string along and form all the large scale structures in the universe. That being the case, all galaxies should have a preferred orientation to their rotational axes...they should all face the same direction or at least the direction in which the current is flowing. There's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. A cursory look at any population of galaxies, anywhere in the universe and you will find random orientations of the galaxies. They point in every direction. The most obvious example being our own Local Group. If you follow the EU thesis, the centre of our galaxy should be in line with M31, M33 and all the others, and these in turn should be lined up with the galaxies of the Virgo Cluster and Supercluster. At least to those that belonged on the same filament (which would be the majority of them), along which our common motion through space was directing us.
That's not correct in the way it's worded but I know what you mean here. The degree to which the very powerful, nuclear region, radio wave emissions occur are mostly seen in elliptical galaxies, as the centres of these galaxies are, in many cases, highly active areas. However, we also have quite a few spirals which show very similar activity....Seyfert Galaxies, for instance.
I stand corrected here. Yes Seyfert galaxies do emit synchroton radiation from the relativistic jet.
However, you are right about the weakness of Perrat's thesis. If the galaxies were the result of galactic scale Birkeland currents and strong confining magnetic fields, there'd be synchrotron radiation everywhere. Every galaxy would be radio bright and their centres would be quasar like. There's no evidence for this at all. Then you have the implications of all this radiation and its impact on life bearing planets. Not only that, all that radiation would, in fact, prevent the formation of stars, as it would heat the gas and dust to such a degree that the clouds of dust and gas would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve their Jeans mass and undergo collapse. The magnetic fields themselves would act to prevent it, especially fields as strong as proposed by Perrat and Scott.
I'm not sure I understand how anyone (let alone EU), can claim this either. That's one of the things driving me in all of this, I guess.
I'm also not convinced that Peratt has generalised relativistic plasmas everywhere. He does make effort to separate the different types of 'plasmas' which may be hypothesised to exist in different places at different densities, at different energies. He says their characteristics are different and thus, so too, should be the detection methods.
The second paper (not yet discussed herein) shows the outputs of his simulations and he appears to have created double spirals in his simulations. How he's done this, I haven't read up on yet.
It is difficult reading as he jumps into and out of high relativistic plasmas very frequently. This could have lead to confusion and may have given rise to the entire EU camp. Sloppy science writing, creates a problem for mainstream science .. (perhaps). If this is the case, you get to be right again, Carl, as you have already said this .. many times over.
I'm not sure I understand how anyone (let alone EU), can claim this either. That's one of the things driving me in all of this, I guess.
I'm also not convinced that Peratt has generalised relativistic plasmas everywhere. He does make effort to separate the different types of 'plasmas' which may be hypothesised to exist in different places at different densities, at different energies. He says their characteristics are different and thus, so too, should be the detection methods.
The second paper (not yet discussed herein) shows the outputs of his simulations and he appears to have created double spirals in his simulations. How he's done this, I haven't read up on yet.
It is difficult reading as he jumps into and out of high relativistic plasmas very frequently. This could have lead to confusion and may have given rise to the entire EU camp. Sloppy science writing, creates a problem for mainstream science .. (perhaps). If this is the case, you get to be right again, Carl, as you have already said this .. many times over.
Cheers
You mean the claim of the Birkeland currents etc.
He makes an effort to separate the different types of plasma but then makes generalisations about what a plasma is...he is including "dusty" plasmas, neutral HI regions etc. Even the free electrons in a conductor, he is calling a plasma. Where do you stop?? Do you call superconductors a plasma??
Double spiral systems can be simulated and created in many different types of systems and situations...you can create one just by pulling the plug out of your sink after washing up. That doesn't mean that particular version is applicable to the formation of spiral galaxies. Neither does his simulations of plasma double spirals. The mathematics describing each system may have much in common and produce the same results, but the causative mechanisms do not.
Ok Carl .. you've completely spoiled my fun .. and I expect a complete apology for that.
I've skipped forward to the second paper: "Advances … Part II AstrophysicalForce Laws on the Large Scale".
Here we find the answers to it all ..
Section 2 Large Scale Structure of the Plasma Universe:
{I've left out the pre-amble to avoid a monster post} ..
Quote:
Thus, spicules, prominences, flares, and other temporal inhomogeneities can be brought under investigation via the circuit description approach that has been highly successful in modern space science. Moreover, the circuit approach allows for the reproduction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum as well as the pinch dynamics important to the study of the formation of the stars in primordial plasma flows. Unfortunately, the method appears unknown in classical astronomy when applied to problems of cosmic importance.
.. a circuit diagram follows, which is kinda interesting but … preceded by the underlined sentence above … kind of removes the interest in one fell swoop.
Figure 7: “Generic circuit description of a space plasma problem (in this case the flow of Birkeland currents in the Earth’s magnetosphere/ionosphere”
Then there's a Section titled "Galactic Dimensioned Birkeland Currents"
.. Sounds promising … might get to the bottom of how he concludes there is such a thing, in the first place:
Quote:
Extrapolating the size and strength of magnetospheric currents to interstellar space leads to the suggestion that confined current flows in interstellar clouds assists in their formation (Alven, 1981).
As a natural extension of the size hierarchy in cosmic plasmas, the existence of galactic dimensioned Birkeland currents or filaments was hypothesized (Alven and Falthammar, 1963, Peratt, 1986).
.. a 'slam dunk' here .. if Alven hypothesised this then it must be so !.. he continues …
Quote:
A galactic field of the order B = 1e-9 to 1e-10 T associated with a galactic dimension of 10e20 to 10e21 m suggests the galactic current to be of the order I = 10e17 to 10e19 A.
This field strength, (1e-9 T = 1e-5 G), is four (?) orders of magnitude greater than was measured in the paper from our "Primordial Intergalactic Magnetic Fields" thread the other day which said the measured field strength was 1e-9 G (which is 1e-13 T, check me here … I think that's right).
Quote:
In the galactic dimensioned Birkeland current model, the width of a typical filament may be taken to be 35kpc (approx 10e21), separated from neighbouring filaments by a similar distance. Since current filaments in laboratory plasmas generally have a width/length ratio in the range 10e-3 to 10e-5, a typical 35kpc wide filament may have an overall length between 35 Mpc and 3.5Gpc with an average length of 350 Mpc. The circuit of course, is closed over this distance (Peratt, 1990).
Man .. his initial assumption is out by four (?) orders of magnitude .. so the rest is also …
In the galactic dimensioned Birkeland current model, the width of a typical filament may be taken to be 35kpc (approx 10e21), separated from neighbouring filaments by a similar distance.
Look at the size of the filament....that's the size of a large galaxy!!!. Where's the evidence for a plasma current filament of that size?? There isn't any.
Since current filaments in laboratory plasmas generally have a width/length ratio in the range 10e-3 to 10e-5, a typical 35kpc wide filament may have an overall length between 35 Mpc and 3.5Gpc with an average length of 350 Mpc. The circuit of course, is closed over this distance (Peratt, 1990).
And that is just a scaling assumption. He's got no idea. There's even less evidence of a filament of that size than for a galactic sized one.
How does he come to the assumption that over the larger distance that it's closed....just because it must be. Just so he doesn't get leakage from the filament ends. Where's the power for the filament coming from??
And here's another furphy of the EU crowd....all these galaxies and such are lined up along these extragalactic current filaments that string along and form all the large scale structures in the universe. That being the case, all galaxies should have a preferred orientation to their rotational axes...they should all face the same direction or at least the direction in which the current is flowing. There's absolutely no evidence for this whatsoever. A cursory look at any population of galaxies, anywhere in the universe and you will find random orientations of the galaxies. They point in every direction. The most obvious example being our own Local Group. If you follow the EU thesis, the centre of our galaxy should be in line with M31, M33 and all the others, and these in turn should be lined up with the galaxies of the Virgo Cluster and Supercluster. At least to those that belonged on the same filament (which would be the majority of them), along which our common motion through space was directing us.
Carl I recall reading that a study showed the galaxies studied did in fact line up like buttons on a string.
I have tried to find the article but no luck..had it on my old lappy but it is no more..The article was in science daily or something similar and seemed most reasonable and not a crackpot guess..
I raised it some time ago here but no one thought it curious at all .... I am not bringing it up to support EU but I think there is support for the line up thing ...there was an article and artists impressions so I doubt it was not "scientific". But if the line up is as I recall and from valid observation I felt you may care to know about it I am sorry I cant provide a link.
When I read about it I was set to wondering why and asked same in a post ..
Some excellent posts on this forum... much of the confusion and questions i see quite often... and at times share!
Earlier SJ touched on 'weakly ionized plasma'. This this still constitutes a plasma, yes this still constitutes current flow. ie Heliospheric current sheet 3 x 10^9 amperes.
Craig made some great comments regarding not all plasma's emit synchrotron radiation.
Quote:
Yes. Its certainly confusing from the outset. Very tiny amounts of plasma mixed in with ionised gas is a pretty weak argument for the claim that 99%, (by volume), of the universe is made from plasma (a claim made early on).
I think the claim here would be since the matter (weakly ionised plasma) is dominated by electromagnetic forces, behavior and function it is deemed a plasma.
Quote:
Look at the size of the driving current....there'd be sychrotron radiation galor!!!
This would of-course depend on the density, see Craig above. Double layers are also *not* always formed, thus are *not* expected to be seen everywhere.
I think we are kind of hitting on some of the many differences between what an electrical engineer or plasma physicist deems a 'plasma'.... and what might commonly be described as a plasma by astrophysicists... ie "hot gas only"....
Other than that i've enjoyed the many insights and questions in this thread.... this kind of discussion helps us all.
It has reached the point where just about every post in this forum section is started by an adherent of pseudoscience, or is about pseudoscience, or rapidly degenerates into an argument over pseudoscience.
. But if the line up is as I recall and from valid observation I felt you may care to know about it I am sorry I cant provide a link.
