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 ..
All I wonder is have you heard of such a study?
alex
Apart from the overall general arrangement of the galaxy clusters and superclusters into large filamentary structures, there is no evidence at all that individual galaxies are, in fact, lined up like "buttons on a string" . At least not in the way the EU propose.
What evidence that there are some galaxies that have been found to have some sort of orientation (quote from "Fossil Evidence for Spin Alignment of SDSS Galaxies in Filaments" dated Sept 17 2010...very new paper)
Quote:
We search for and find fossil evidence that the spin axes of galaxies in cosmic web filaments relative to their host filaments are not randomly distributed. This indicates the fact that the action of large-scale tidal torques affected the alignments of galaxies located in cosmic filaments.
To this end, we constructed a catalogue of clean filaments containing edge-on galaxies. We started by applying the multiscale morphology filter technique to the galaxies in a redshift-distortion-corrected version of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 5. From this sample, we extracted 426 filaments that contained edge-on galaxies (b/a < 0.2). These filaments were then visually classified relative to a variety of quality criteria. These selected filaments contained 69 edge-on galaxies. Statistical analysis using ‘feature measures’ indicates that the distribution of orientations of these edge-on galaxies relative to their parent filament deviates significantly from what would be expected on the basis of a random distribution of orientations. Fewer than 1 per cent of orientation histograms generated from simulated random distributions show the same features as observed in the data histogram.
The interpretation of this result may not be immediately apparent, but it is easy to identify a population of 14 objects whose spin axes are aligned perpendicular to the spine of the parent filament (cos θ < 0.2). The candidate objects are found in relatively less dense filaments. This happens because galaxies in such locations suffer less interaction with surrounding galaxies and consequently better preserve their tidally induced orientations relative to the parent filament. These objects are also less intrinsically bright and smaller than their counterparts elsewhere in the filaments.
The technique of searching for fossil evidence of alignment yields relatively few candidate objects, but it does not suffer from the dilution effects inherent in correlation analysis of large samples. The candidate objects could be the subjects of a programme of observations aimed at understanding in what way they might differ from their non-aligned counterparts.
You'll see that the few galaxies they did find with any possible orientation were oriented perpendicular to the long axis of the filaments, which if it was the case as proposed by the EU would be an alignment parallel to the long axis if the filament. The spin axes of the galaxies would follow the direction of the current. Why?? Simple EM theory...the magnetic field of the galaxy has to be perpendicular to the direction of the flow of the current. In this case, with the spiral arms etc, being a product of Birkeland currents within the galaxies, the combined fields of both the filament current and the Birkeland currents (within the galaxies themselves) would forcibly align the rotational axes of the galaxies to the direction of the current.
There is no observational evidence for this. This is hardly "beads on a string" type of orientation.
The reason why the galaxies in this study are aligned perpendicular to the current is that they occur in less dense regions of the filament where interactions between galaxies is less common, so any tidally induced orientation of the galaxies, due to the mass of the filament they formed in, is better preserved. They are also smaller galaxies than the others, so they are more affected by tidally induced orientation. Go anywhere else in the filament and the orientation of the galaxies is messy and all over the place.
In any case, there hasn't been enough time for further study of this particular paper, so we will have to wait to see what responses there are to their assertions.
Thanks Carl and Alex
The study I read did not offer any reason why the line up was as observed so from that study there was no axe being ground to suit any particular view.
alex
Thanks Carl and Alex
The study I read did not offer any reason why the line up was as observed so from that study there was no axe being ground to suit any particular view.
alex
See if you can find it....even if you have to hack into your old lappy
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??
Easy........a giant microwave oven in space. If you need evidence try cutting a grape into quarters, place under a glass in a microwave and press go. Instant plasma .
Easy........a giant microwave oven in space. If you need evidence try cutting a grape into quarters, place under a glass in a microwave and press go. Instant plasma .
See, in my newly educated mode, (credits to Don Scott) ..
There is some credible, theoretical plasma physics basis behind his filament statement. (Dark mode Birkeland, filaments).
The problem is producing the evidence that one this big could ever exist, as Carl rightly points out.
How it powers itself is directly related to the density of the plasma and the power dissipation, as it travels thru space. At the moment in my 'education', it looks to me like a perpetual motion machine. It seems that once a Birkeland filament exists, it can never stop !
See, in my newly educated mode, (credits to Don Scott) ..
There is some credible, theoretical plasma physics basis behind his filament statement. (Dark mode Birkeland, filaments).
The problem is producing the evidence that one this big could ever exist, as Carl rightly points out.
How it powers itself is directly related to the density of the plasma and the power dissipation, as it travels thru space. At the moment in my 'education', it looks to me like a perpetual motion machine. It seems that once a Birkeland filament exists, it can never stop !
Cheers
Problem is this, Craig....anything masking the Birkeland currents will cause them to collapse. You're effectively blocking the current flow. If you hide them from view (at all wavelengths), you're stopping any emissions from the plasma in which the Birkeland currents exist. Essentially, you're neutralising the plasma. Neutralise the plasma in any way, shape or form and it becomes nothing more than a cloud of gas.
This dark mode is a furphy. Essentially an engineering term for a bias current generated in a semiconductor detector or circuit without the input of an external source of energy, e.g. light, charge etc. In astrophotography parlance, it's the current that is generated in a CCD when no light is falling on the detector...hence the term "dark". It's called the bias and when taking your piccies, you have to account for it as it will increase the noise present in your piccies. This is a reasonably good explanation of what it is....Dark Current (Dark Mode).
It has nothing to do with astrophysics.
There is a feedback mechanism in plasmas where a z-pinch can gain net energy from the plasma in the pinch (via elastic collisions and induction), but it still requires an input from somewhere to sustain it for any indefinite period. Otherwise, as you said, it becomes a perpetual motion machine.
Problem is this, Craig....anything masking the Birkeland currents will cause them to collapse. You're effectively blocking the current flow. If you hide them from view (at all wavelengths), you're stopping any emissions from the plasma in which the Birkeland currents exist. Essentially, you're neutralising the plasma. Neutralise the plasma in any way, shape or form and it becomes nothing more than a cloud of gas.
From my rudimentary understanding, parallel filaments seem to feed off each other, also.
Also if there is no movement of the plasma, there is no current and thus no magnetic field and thus, no more filament (?). So if something blocks the path and its big enough (Like a planet or some other disruptive source), I can see that the filament would cease. Apparently, it puts up a fight, though, once its in existence.
But what if nothing blocks the path ?
Quote:
This dark mode is a furphy. Essentially an engineering term for a bias current generated in a semiconductor detector or circuit without the input of an external source of energy, e.g. light, charge etc. In astrophotography parlance, it's the current that is generated in a CCD when no light is falling on the detector...hence the term "dark". It's called the bias and when taking your piccies, you have to account for it as it will increase the noise present in your piccies. This is a reasonably good explanation of what it is....Dark Current (Dark Mode).
It has nothing to do with astrophysics.
I have a feeling this 'Dark Mode' is not an electronics type of dark current. I'm pretty familiar with flows across doped junctions in semiconductors and I don't think this is what they're on about. The dark mode seems to come from a plasma voltage vs current density graph (verifiable in the lab) and is what precedes the 'Glow' phase which in turn, precedes the 'Arc' phase (as the current density increases). The plasma seems to behave differently, depending on the voltage applied and the density of the current/electric field.
What powers the transition from one phase to another seems to rely on an externally applied EMF. Presumably, this would be coming from a nearby source like a star.
Geezz .. I'm starting to sound like a plasma guy !!
Quote:
There is a feedback mechanism in plasmas where a z-pinch can gain net energy from the plasma in the pinch (via elastic collisions and induction), but it still requires an input from somewhere to sustain it for any indefinite period. Otherwise, as you said, it becomes a perpetual motion machine.
Yep. This is the big question .. what is the physics of plasma over uninterrupted distances and distances separating the plasma from the driving potential difference ?
From my rudimentary understanding, parallel filaments seem to feed off each other, also.
Also if there is no movement of the plasma, there is no current and thus no magnetic field and thus, no more filament (?). So if something blocks the path and its big enough (Like a planet or some other disruptive source), I can see that the filament would cease. Apparently, it puts up a fight, though, once its in existence.
But what if nothing blocks the path ?
I have a feeling this 'Dark Mode' is not an electronics type of dark current. I'm pretty familiar with flows across doped junctions in semiconductors and I don't think this is what they're on about. The dark mode seems to come from a plasma voltage vs current density graph (verifiable in the lab) and is what precedes the 'Glow' phase which in turn, precedes the 'Arc' phase (as the current density increases). The plasma seems to behave differently, depending on the voltage applied and the density of the current/electric field.
What powers the transition from one phase to another seems to rely on an externally applied EMF. Presumably, this would be coming from a nearby source like a star.
Geezz .. I'm starting to sound like a plasma guy !!
Yep. This is the big question .. what is the physics of plasma over uninterrupted distances and distances separating the plasma from the driving potential difference ?
Interesting.
Cheers
It's not about something blocking the physical path of travel, it's about something blocking the flow of voltage along the mean free path of the charge, essentially neutralising the potential difference...which is what generates the voltage/current, etc, in the first place. It doesn't matter if anything is in the way or not, that has nothing to do with it. Not only this, if the plasma doesn't act like a closed circuit, you'll get leakage from the open end, loss of energy and eventual collapse of the current and the pinch. Regardless of whether they feed off one another or not.
It's precisely what it is....except it's couched in slightly different terminology to wrap it around an astrophysical context. In this case, Dark mode meaning it's not detectable via any emissions being generated through the potential difference and the current density. It doesn't matter what current density there is, the potential difference or whatever, a plasma will generate emissions of some type and wavelength/frequency. Whether that's in radio, xray, gamma rays or UV/IR. The fact that you can't see it in the visible part of the spectrum means nothing. If you stop the plasma from producing that emission, whether it's via no net acceleration or movement between its constituent ions or you block the flow of charge or ionisation in any way, you collapse the current. No current, no pinch, no plasma....then there will be no emissions (apart from the usual thermal ones), for real.
The EU/PC guys don't specify a source (not on galactic or intergalactic scales, at least), but a star could be a source of interplanetary nature, if it was powering the currents via input through its normal activity.
I may have misjudged the Relaxation Oscillator thingy also.
Alex forwarded us a paper which contained a model of transmission lines.
What's that got to do with a Relaxation Oscillator ? I asked.
Apparently what they're saying is that a pulse entered into that system bounces up and down the transmission line (like what caused power blackouts in the Northern US). The pulse continues bouncing back and forth between impedance boundaries simulated by the combination of modelled elements in the transmission circuit model. This then, starts to emulate the behaviour of a Relaxation Oscillator. Mind you, each time the pulse rebounds, it loses energy and eventually dies out due to losses in the transmission line media.
I'll have to re-read the Peratt/Healy paper again on this one.
This post should also be on our 'Primordial Magnetic Fields' thread. I might copy it over there, for the record (& for Bojan to shoot me down on this .. oh you can, too )
.. I'm not saying that any of this makes sense, yet .. I'm just seeing that there may be a lot of miscommunication going on as the Electrical speak comes together with AstroPhysics .. not of our making .. it's up to the PC authors to have explained all this much more clearly .. and they haven't.
How are they going to sort out the translation of the lingo when they don't understand the syntax behind the lingo to begin with
They're misusing "pigeon" plasma physics and trying to create a whole new lingo out of that which makes no sense. You only have to look at what they espouse over at Thunderbolts (and other related sites) to see where this is all going.
It's not about something blocking the physical path of travel, it's about something blocking the flow of voltage along the mean free path of the charge, essentially neutralising the potential difference...which is what generates the voltage/current, etc, in the first place. It doesn't matter if anything is in the way or not, that has nothing to do with it.
Its all tied up with Maxwell's theories/equations. They are multi-variable. Need to consider all three vector fields at once.
Quote:
Not only this, if the plasma doesn't act like a closed circuit, you'll get leakage from the open end, loss of energy and eventual collapse of the current and the pinch. Regardless of whether they feed off one another or not.
This seems to be one of the basic tenets of Plasma Physics. Scott says that lines of magnetic fields, (which are artifacts of a model and hence aren't real), always join up. I'll have to think about this one. (Theoretically, they may be correct. Practically however, is a different matter). This is their argument. The Birkeland filament follows the magnetic flux lines.
The big thing in this aspect is the drop off in field strength as you move away from the source vs the regenerative capability of the filament at differing plasma densities/energies. Otherwise you end up with the 'perpetual motion machine'.
Quote:
It's precisely what it is....except it's couched in slightly different terminology to wrap it around an astrophysical context. In this case, Dark mode meaning it's not detectable via any emissions being generated through the potential difference and the current density. It doesn't matter what current density there is, the potential difference or whatever, a plasma will generate emissions of some type and wavelength/frequency. Whether that's in radio, xray, gamma rays or UV/IR. The fact that you can't see it in the visible part of the spectrum means nothing. If you stop the plasma from producing that emission, whether it's via no net acceleration or movement between its constituent ions or you block the flow of charge or ionisation in any way, you collapse the current. No current, no pinch, no plasma....then there will be no emissions (apart from the usual thermal ones), for real.
From Peratt's paper, there are lots of detection methods which need to be used depending on whether the plasma is in the 'Dark, Glow or Arc' phases. I tell ya .. this whole ball of wax has not been expressed clearly in their papers. It is complex, and it needs to be more clearly communicated by them.
Quote:
The EU/PC guys don't specify a source (not on galactic or intergalactic scales, at least), but a star could be a source of interplanetary nature, if it was powering the currents via input through its normal activity.
Yep. And on huge intergalactic scales with dust, radiation, powerful objects and free space dielectrics intervening in the pathway .. I'd guess that the filaments would die off as the plasma disperses. That seems to make sense doesn't it ?
Its all tied up with Maxwell's theories/equations. They are multi-variable. Need to consider all three vector fields at once.
Doesn't matter what it's tied up with. Maxewell's equations just describe the link between electricity and magnetism. Nothing more or less. If a current or whatever is being blocked/masked and can't be detected in any way, shape or form, then it collapses. You can't have a current with no potential difference....the definition of a current is the flow of electrons across a potential difference. The voltage is the potential difference drop. Negate it and it just doesn't happen.
Quote:
This seems to be one of the basic tenants of Plasma Physics. Scott says that lines of magnetic fields, (which are artifacts of a model and hence aren't real), always join up. I'll have to think about this one. (Theoretically, they may be correct. Practically however, is a different matter). This is their argument. The Birkeland filament follows the magnetic flux lines.
The big thing in this aspect is the drop off in field strength as you move away from the source vs the regenerative capability of the filament at differing plasma densities/energies. Otherwise you end up with the 'perpetual motion machine'.
Any ion will be influenced by a magnetic field. Even electrically neutral particles such as neutrons will follow and be deflected by an electrical field because they have an intrinsic magnetic moment. That the Birkeland currents follow the magnetic field lines is neither here nor there. They would be expected to, since they consist of ionised particles. So it's a circular argument to begin with and doesn't in any way explain their contentions of a "dark mode" undetectable current within the plasma. Nor why it exists when it's being masked (since it can't be generating any emissions, according to them).
Precisely, it all smells of perpetual motion, and remember, these are (mostly) open systems, not closed as in most lab situations.
Quote:
From Peratt's paper, there are lots of detection methods which need to be used depending on whether the plasma is in the 'Dark, Glow or Arc' phases. I tell ya .. this whole ball of wax has not been expressed clearly in their papers. It is complex, and it needs to be more clearly communicated by them.
It's a whole heap of smoke and mirrors. Not just a ball of wax and this is precisely why papers like this would never make it into the respected astronomical or physics journals (not journals for the IEEE, regardless of their respectability). The science is wishy washy and so is their evidence, plus the way they express their findings leaves a lot to be desired.
As for the detection methods...if a plasma is giving off radiant energy at any wavelength/frequency, you use the appropriate detection methods, as you would for astrophysical phenomena (and the methods are pretty much similar). If it's not generating anything, it's either neutral (but even they can be detected using polarised light) or it's not a plasma.
Quote:
Yep. And on huge intergalactic scales with dust, radiation, powerful objects and free space dielectrics intervening in the pathway .. I'd guess that the filaments would die off as the plasma disperses. That seems to make sense doesn't it ?
I may have misjudged the Relaxation Oscillator thingy also.
Alex forwarded us a paper which contained a model of transmission lines.
What's that got to do with a Relaxation Oscillator ? I asked.
Apparently what they're saying is that a pulse entered into that system bounces up and down the transmission line (like what caused power blackouts in the Northern US). The pulse continues bouncing back and forth between impedance boundaries simulated by the combination of modelled elements in the transmission circuit model. This then, starts to emulate the behaviour of a Relaxation Oscillator. Mind you, each time the pulse rebounds, it loses energy and eventually dies out due to losses in the transmission line media.
I'll have to re-read the Peratt/Healy paper again on this one.
This post should also be on our 'Primordial Magnetic Fields' thread. I might copy it over there, for the record (& for Bojan to shoot me down on this .. oh you can, too )
.. I'm not saying that any of this makes sense, yet .. I'm just seeing that there may be a lot of miscommunication going on as the Electrical speak comes together with AstroPhysics .. not of our making .. it's up to the PC authors to have explained all this much more clearly .. and they haven't.
Cheers
You didn't misjudge anything.
For an 'oscillator' to be called an oscillator, you have to have amplifier and feedback.
The feedback must be of such a nature, that the 'open loop gain' is bigger than 1 (one), and the phase is close to 0° (or 360°)
If you don't have those elements. you don't have an oscillator.
Now, gain means, there must be an input of power from somewhere (even internal power source will do) to sustain oscillations, otherwise, as you pointed out, they will stop after couple od periods, sometimes even sooner (as in case of relaxation oscillator .. which, BTW, doesn't have frequency selective circuit, like transmission line.. it has TWO amplifiers, for phase shift of 180° each).
ANY model of the pulsar must firstly explain the unusual frequency stability - as we (RF electronics engineers) know, oscillators are very unstable circuits in terms of frequency, especially when Q factor of the circuit goes low (high losses in the circuit... which is radiation of energy in any form from the system).
As I said before, and I am repeating now, in Peratt's there is NOTHING that looks like an oscillator.
It is more like very crude and simplified equivalent circuit that tries to model currents in ionised environment over large distances (up to couple of hundreds of thousands kilometres.. to explain relatively low pulse repetition rate - milliseconds to seconds).
The only thing that looks like active element is that variable resistor... but there is no feedback path.. and energy source is not determined.
I were the teacher in high school, noone with paper like this would pass the exam as far as I am concerned.
Apart from the discrepancies raised by Carl and Craig, the definition of plasma is "nebulous" to say the least
Here is a quote from Peratt's article.
The degree of ionization ordinarily relates to a gas not plasma.
As Peratt states in the last sentence the degree of ionization for HI regions is 10^-4. This means there is approximately 99% atomic hydrogen and 1% plasma. Yet he refers to the degree of ionization of plasmas. By definition a plasma is a gas that has been 100% ionized so referring to degrees of ionization of plasma seems to be illogical.
Peratt gets out of this logical bind by claiming that neutral hydrogen (HI) with it's 99% atomic hydrogen and 1% plasma is classified as a plasma!
Now here is the discrepancy. Plasma physicists study the reaction kinetics or collision cross-sections of plasmas and claim gases that have a degree of ionization as low as 10^-3 exhibit collision properties which a more plasma like.
Apart from the fact that HI regions fall below this value and are therefore not considered plasmas in terms of it's collision properties, Peratt seems to assume "the non plasma components" of the plasma are going to behave in the same way as plasma with regards to structure formation.
Would we expect a HI region composed of 99% neutral hydrogen to participate in the formation of Birkeland currents, magnetic fields, and be contrained in Z pinches?
It appears simply calling HI regions plasmas seems to get around the question.
Regards
Steven
Hi Steven, Thanks for your reply, as you (and craig) continually trigger me with insightful questions to consider.
"The importance of electro-magnetic forces cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (10^-4 parts ionized) the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is still 10^7"
It appears plasma is defined by the "dominant" force, in this case electro-magnetic, over the gravitational force. These seems very logical no? We do not need to look for the percentage of ionisation, rather what is the dominant force that governs the behavior of the matter in study.
This gem of a historical reference paper is also where the "99.999% of matter by volume is in plasma state." is described
As I said before, and I am repeating now, in Peratt's there is NOTHING that looks like an oscillator.
It is more like very crude and simplified equivalent circuit that tries to model currents in ionised environment over large distances (up to couple of hundreds of thousands kilometres.. to explain relatively low pulse repetition rate - milliseconds to seconds).
The only thing that looks like active element is that variable resistor... but there is no feedback path.. and energy source is not determined.
I were the teacher in high school, noone with paper like this would pass the exam as far as I am concerned.
Bojan dear friend you are making the relaxation oscillator far more complex than is suggested by the ES pulsar model.
As current pours into the star (or binary system), the plasma has capacitance... as this builds up.... the "discharge" will occur to facilitate the return to equilibrium of the system.
A freshman exercise is to use these above components to produce these, commonly used with spark gap devices driving tesla coils
This is where Scott, qualitatively is going with the ES hypothesis.... ie... current feeds into star (A).... arcs over companion star (b)... yes it's a qualitative model.
Peratt on the other hand is doing particular modeling of emission characteristics of the plasma surrounding the star, not requiring "spinning", but leaves it open as to the 'driver' of the system.
Doesn't matter what it's tied up with. Maxewell's equations just describe the link between electricity and magnetism. Nothing more or less. If a current or whatever is being blocked/masked and can't be detected in any way, shape or form, then it collapses. You can't have a current with no potential difference....the definition of a current is the flow of electrons across a potential difference. The voltage is the potential difference drop. Negate it and it just doesn't happen.
Any ion will be influenced by a magnetic field. Even electrically neutral particles such as neutrons will follow and be deflected by an electrical field because they have an intrinsic magnetic moment. That the Birkeland currents follow the magnetic field lines is neither here nor there. They would be expected to, since they consist of ionised particles. So it's a circular argument to begin with and doesn't in any way explain their contentions of a "dark mode" undetectable current within the plasma. Nor why it exists when it's being masked (since it can't be generating any emissions, according to them).
As for the detection methods...if a plasma is giving off radiant energy at any wavelength/frequency,
Carl this is covered in the Peratt paper i mentioned regarding Steven's neutral hydrogen regions, particularly with your "expected" radiation etc, as plasma depending on it's state "gives off" a range of radiation, some beyond our timescale.
As current pours into the star (or binary system), the plasma has capacitance... as this builds up.... the "discharge" will occur to facilitate the return to equilibrium of the system.
A freshman exercise is to use these above components to produce these, commonly used with spark gap devices driving tesla coils
This is where Scott, qualitatively is going with the ES hypothesis.... ie... current feeds into star (A).... arcs over companion star (b)... yes it's a qualitative model.
Peratt on the other hand is doing particular modeling of emission characteristics of the plasma surrounding the star, not requiring "spinning", but leaves it open as to the 'driver' of the system.
This circuit will oscillate, yes (provided power is present) ... but the stability of frequency of oscillation is nowhere enough (to compare with pulsars - they are so accurate that can be used as frequency standards, if not for occasional and tiny glitches, cause by star-quakes).
Loong time ago, at the dawn of electronics, similar historic design was used, but not any more.. It was mentioned only briefly as a curiosity on the first year at uni where I studied 40+ years ago.
The frequency of oscillation for this circuit depends on all values of the components presented, especially power supply and threshold voltage of the neon lamp.
How can you guarantee that equivalent components (whatever they may be) are sufficiently stable in the 'real thing'?
This is only one of the reasons I disagree this "model" or, better to say, equivalent circuit could be used for pulsars.
And I am not making things complicated: i was just stating what is required for relaxation oscillator.
So, unless you can offer plausible explanation for frequency stability problem, we have nothing to discuss about.. fast rotation of compact object fits this bill naturally.
. 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.
.
