Dark matter and Dark energy

[BeAChooser]

Take a close look at this source, Olowkow:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap&SS.227..167S "Rotation velocity and neutral hydrogen distribution dependency on magnetic field strength in spiral galaxies, Charles M. Snell and Anthony L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, May 1995, "Abstract: The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show flat rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed."

 

[Ziggurat]

In 1937 Hannes Alfven proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field.

Slight problem: positive an negative particles will orbit in opposite directions.

When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies.

Numbers, please. What's the size of the field? Or is this just more handwaving?

The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. For instance, in the simplest Solar System model, the planets closest to the center rotate at the very fastest speeds, and gradually decrease in speed at larger distances from the center

Yes, gravity falls off as you get farther away from an object, but the farther away you are from the galactic center, the more mass there is pulling on you. That is in marked contrast to solar system dynamics, where the relevant mass, to first order, is solely from the sun. So we shouldn't expect the same dynamics, and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you or doesn't know what they're talking about.

The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone,

Only if you assume particular mass distributions. But you can find mass distributions which will describe it correctly with gravity alone.

but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior.

But to get this, you're still going to be fiddling around with finding correct fields, charges and currents in order to get it to fit - why is fitting a field you don't know exists intrinsically better than fitting a mass distribution?

And what are the fields involved? That's curiously absent. I take that back: it's not curious at all, it's entirely predictable.

 

[BeAChooser]

there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents[citation needed] and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena preclude plasma current mechanisms.

By the way, that statement is absolutely false.

Everywhere we look we see evidence of Birkeland currents.

The sprites, elves, and blue jets associated with electrical storms on are examples in Earth's atmosphere. They contribute to Earth's auroras.

They are found on other planets (such as this evidence for them on Saturn: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=4egjus1n and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984agu..conf..340H ).

They are seen on the surface of the sun in solar flares.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/solarflare.jpg

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Twists.jpg

They are the "magnetic ropes" or "flux tubes" that astronomers recently discovered carrying vast amounts of energy between the sun and the earth and into the solar wind in general.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/11dec_themis.htm

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000932000001000026000001

We find them in the interstellar medium ...

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0004/cygloop_blair.jpg

The Cygnus Loop (above) has all the characteristics of an interstellar Birkeland current.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html "IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS ... snip ... A plasma scientist and a radio astronomer announced the discovery of charged particle flows in interstellar space at the 1999 International Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey, California. ... snip ... According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.' ... snip ... Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico, but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over enormous distances between the stars. Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye. Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand billion amperes. ... snip ... The discovery was called "Exciting," by S. T. Lai, a researcher at the Air Force Research Laboratory in Hanscom, MA. Lai, an authority on a phenomena called "critical ionization velocity," who noted that the data fell precisely where predicted by the late physics Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995), who in his theory about the origin of planets in 1942, calculated that if a neutral cloud in space fell through a magnetized plasma, the neutral gas would itself become ionized at discrete velocities. Alfvén predicted that the signature of his plasma theory in space would be the observation of filaments and his discrete velocities."

We find them in the heart of our own galaxy ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/images/040723galactic-filaments.jpg

... and also in other galaxies.

For example, a close up of the NGC 3079's core reveals four columns of gaseous filaments that rise above the galaxy's disk.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/2001/28/images/c/formats/full_jpg.jpg

The filaments reach the amazing height of 2,000 light-years with each about 75 light-years wide. Big Bang astronomers "suspect" that these filaments are particles blown by "winds" released during a burst of star formation. But experts in plasma and electromagnitism would say those are spiraling Birkeland currents that are part of the galaxy's homopolar magnetic field.

And we find evidence of Birkeland currents between the galaxies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v341/n6244/abs/341720a0.html "Discovery of intergalactic radio emission in the Coma–A1367 supercluster ... snip ... THE Coma cluster is a rich cluster of galaxies nested in an even larger supercluster of galaxies. ... snip ... The Coma cluster of galaxies seems to be located on the rim of a giant void in the three-dimensional distribution of galaxies. Here we describe the detection of faint, supercluster-scale radio emission at 326 MHz that extends between the Coma cluster of galaxies (Abell 1656) and the Abell 1367 cluster and which is apparently not associated with any individual galaxy system in the complex. The radiation's synchrotron origin implies the existence of a large-scale intercluster magnetic field with an estimated strength of 0.3–0.6 G, which is remarkably strong. The synchrotron-emitting relativistic electrons cannot be older than a few times 10^^8 yr, but we speculate that the magnetic field is the fossil of a pre-galactic primaeval field, which was amplified in the course of the formation of intergalactic voids and superclusters."

Everywhere we look there is evidence of Birkeland currents ... yet mainstream astronomers just can't seem to see it. Because to do so threatens their precious gnomes.

 

[BeAChooser]

Numbers, please. What's the size of the field? Or is this just more handwaving?

I provided you with links to peer reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals describing large-scale super computer calculations using well validated point in cell computer codes which incorporated known electromagnetic physics as well as the effects of gravity. That's not handwaving. I can't help it that you, like mainstream astrophysicists in general, are too lazy to actually read those articles, Ziggurat. You just prove my point.

Of course, coming from some one who recently denied that most of the visible matter in the universe was plasma ...

 

[BeAChooser]

But you can find mass distributions which will describe it correctly with gravity alone.

Only if you posit the existence of VAST amounts of dark matter ... far, far more than any matter which has actually been observed or which even stellar remnants and particles like neutrinos might explain. Dark matter which seems to only interact with the universe via gravity and even then in ways that mainstream astrophysics are having problems explaining (Why do some galaxies show no sign of dark matter? Why are there vast voids that apparently contain no dark matter?). Dark matter, that even after 30 years and billions and billions of dollars spent looking, you haven't found.

 

[Smackety]

I thought the 90% dark matter mass number was an estimate of the size of the black hole in the center of the galaxy?

 

[arthwollipot]

The lengths to which the mainstream will go to explain away the observations that don't fit their model get sillier and crazier all the time.

This is a remarkably short-sighted view of science. Relativity seemed crazy at the time. Heck, the idea that gravity affected all bodies equally seemed crazy at the time. Dismissing an idea simply because it appears to be "silly" or "crazy" is ludicrous.

The theory I described above is a direct result of the mathematics of (I had to bring it up) superstring theory and M-theory. And before you go and grab a rope, let me just say that superstring theory is still the leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity. I haven't seen any articles about loop quantum gravity (for example) for some time in New Scientist, but there's one on string theory in the 9th January edition.

Okay, I've brought up superstring theory. I'll go get my flameproof underwear now.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Worrying about dark matter/dark energy is like contemplating the nature of the Universe, while a bomb is ticking under your house.

It might be interesting to you, but most people would consider the bomb a more important issue.

I totally agree, going after the bomb is much more important than probing the secrets of the universe.

Luckily with the invention of things called "farmers" and "farms" its now possible for for a majority of the population to concern themselves with pursuits other than immediate survival. We have enough farmers that we can grow the food people need, look for a bomb under your house, and investigate the secrets of the universe all at the same time! Isn't it great?

LLH

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks. When you say 'distributed spherically', do you mean distributed evenly within a sphere (a multivariate uniform distribution) or distributed with the heaviest concentrating at the center and tapering out in all dimensions evenly (a multivariate normal distribution)?

The second, although the density profile isn't very well known. To explain galactic rotation curves, I guess you need the density to fall of like 1 over radius squared at large radius.

Do we know why the dark matter became distributed differently from visible matter, or just that it currently is distributed that way?

Ordinary matter forms a disk because it interacts strongly and can expel mass as it collapses. Galaxies begin as more or less spherical collections of rotating dust. As they collapse, matter is ejected due to interactions. But angular momentum is conserved by that process, and so the remaining matter must flatten into a pancake. Dark matter on the other hand interacts only very weakly, has no mechaism to eject mass and so never flattens.

 

[sol invictus]

Again, note that there are NO peer reviewed papers directly challenging the calculations of Peratt with regards to galactic rotation.

Good point.

I don't know any peer-reviewed papers in astrophysics challenging the conclusion that Leos with Virgo ascendant are perfectionists, either.

 

[sol invictus]

Worrying about dark matter/dark energy is like contemplating the nature of the Universe, while a bomb is ticking under your house.

It might be interesting to you, but most people would consider the bomb a more important issue.

Powerful, cogent argument, as usual.

I mean, it seems like every day I see another article in the paper about some head-in-the-clouds astrophysicist killed by a bomb that had been loudly ticking away under her house while she sat there moronically trying to figure out "dark matter".

Seriously, what's wrong with those people??

 

[Tumbleweed]

In my opinion the true nature of empty "space" has to be further explored if you want to unlock the secrets of DM and DE
Is space "created " by something?" Is it just there, no explanations needed?
Is it homogenous as one big entity, or is it as matter is, composed of tiny parts glued together in various concentrations thoughout the universe, some sectors com-pletely devoid of boths "space" and matter?
If space is being caused by "something"? How is that "something" interacting with matter, with other "somethings", and are those "somethings" even charged at all?

 

[Tumbleweed]

If I am reading between the lines correctly from these posts, there appears to be a theory that the galaxy has some sort of magnetic field plasma going for it that permeates our solar system.
If true would that explain the planets rotations?
The Earth is after all, a great conductor with an enormous theorized current flowing in it
If that is true, the only element missing in a Motor System is a magnetic field. If the galaxy is providing that, voila! ( Or eureka! if you don't know French) we have a motor!

 

[Ziggurat]

I provided you with links to peer reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals describing large-scale super computer calculations using well validated point in cell computer codes which incorporated known electromagnetic physics as well as the effects of gravity.

In the post I replied to, you linked to two PDF's. Only the first was a published article. And neither source lists the magnetic fields used for or derived from their simulations.

I can't help it that you, like mainstream astrophysicists in general, are too lazy to actually read those articles, Ziggurat. You just prove my point.

Oh, the irony. There's only one reference to an actual magnetic field strength in either of those PDF's (page 10 of your first PDF), and it isn't in connection with the simulations. They never state what fields were used or calculated in those simulations, so there's no way to compare those simulations to anything real. But let's take a look at it in more detail, shall we? They suggest a field of 10^-9 to ^-10 Tesla. OK, fine. How much force would this field apply to the sun? Well, we need a charge on our sun. Your predictions for the charge have always been absurd. So let's find a real estimate:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti.../articles/aa/abs/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html
"The net positive charge has to be smaller than 10⁻³⁶ qA Coulombs, where q is elementary electric charge (charge of proton) and A is number of baryons in the star."
That works out to be on the order of 100 Coulombs for the sun (which has ~10⁵⁷ baryons).

So what's an upper bound on the force on the sun from this large a magnetic field? qv x B. Our solar system is moving at about 220 km/s ~ 2x10⁵ m/s. So 100 C x 2x10⁵ m/s x 10^-9 T = 2x10^-2 N. What acceleration does this provide? a=F/m = 2x10^-2 N/2x10³⁰ kg = 10^-32 m/s².

Now, what's our actual acceleration about the galactic core? Well, it's 2pi*v/t, where v is our velocity and t is the period. Our period is about 8x10¹⁵ seconds, so 1.4x10⁶/8x10¹⁵ ~ 1.7x10^-10 m/s².

So magnetic forces can only account for roughly 1 part in 10²² of our acceleration. Same basic calculations will apply for other stars. So either you need to drastically increase the magnetic field for your model or you need to find some way of containing many orders of magnitude more charge on your sun in order for the difference to even register against the error bars, let alone describe the discrepency between visible mass gravity and observed acceleration. But there's about a 20 orders of magnitude gap to close, and it cannot be done. I've already demonstrated how unfeasible cranking up the charge on the sun is, and you have never responded.

So you go ahead and keep telling me I'm not the one reading what was written. Meanwhile, I'll keeo showing that I can do calculations to demonstrate the absurdity of your ideas and you can't do a single calculation to support them.

 

[Ziggurat]

If I am reading between the lines correctly from these posts, there appears to be a theory that the galaxy has some sort of magnetic field plasma going for it that permeates our solar system.

It's more than that. BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion. In short, he's a believer in nonsense.

If true would that explain the planets rotations?

Nope. The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.

If that is true, the only element missing in a Motor System is a magnetic field. If the galaxy is providing that, voila! ( Or eureka! if you don't know French) we have a motor!

Except this wouldn't produce the right observed differences in the orbits of different planets, since the forces involved wouldn't share the same r dependence that gravity does.

 

[Tumbleweed]

It's more than that. BAC doesn't believe in the Big Bang, and thinks that an "electric universe" model can produce an infinitely old universe. He also thinks that the sun is powered by electricity and not by fusion. In short, he's a believer in nonsense.



Nope. The planets' orbits are very well explained by gravity alone.



Except this wouldn't produce the right observed differences in the orbits of different planets, since the forces involved wouldn't share the same r dependence that gravity does.

No no, I was talking about the Earth's daily rotation, not its orbit around the sun

 

[Ziggurat]

No no, I was talking about the Earth's daily rotation, not its orbit around the sun

Oh. Well, that doesn't require any forces at all. That's just conservation of angular momentum. Spinning objects don't stop spinning unless you put a drag on them, but there's not much to drag on the earth's rotation.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Oh. Well, that doesn't require any forces at all. That's just conservation of angular momentum. Spinning objects don't stop spinning unless you put a drag on them, but there's not much to drag on the earth's rotation.

>>>

But isn't true that there is not agreement as to why the Earth spins? If so, I am merely speculating from lesson I took on motors. The Earth and motors have very similar characteristics: both spin, and both have conductors with current flowing in them. The magnetic field is the Missing Link

 

[Ziggurat]

But isn't true that there is not agreement as to why the Earth spins?

No.

The Earth and motors have very similar characteristics: both spin, and both have conductors with current flowing in them. The magnetic field is the Missing Link

Motors also have loads and friction. The earth has almost no friction, and so if there were a driving force for it, it should speed up over time, not maintain a constant rotation rate. And in fact, the earth's rotation is slowing down (because the drag isn't zero - it comes from tidal friction with the moon), though at a very slow rate.

Furthermore, the combination of magnetic fields and currents don't always act like a motor. Often times, they act like a brake. So naive comparisons like this aren't a good way of predicting what the actual behavior will be.

 

[ben m]

Aaargh! Will there never be an astrophysics thread at JREF which isn't hijacked by this same cut-and-paste posting from the same fringe theory?

BAC, plasmas can't account for rotation curves, no matter how strong you make the fields and how dense you make the plasmas. Why not? Because there are a zillion objects of different types orbiting galaxies in different directions. If there's a Galactic electromagnetic field pushing on stars, then it pushes on the star's charges, solar winds, and magnetic fields. Neutron stars, white dwarfs, black holes, main-sequence stars (from T-Tauri to Wolf-Rayet to O to red giant), binary stars, planetary nebulae, gas clouds, and so on ... they all have the same centripetal acceleration. In your theory, then, they all have to have the same charge to mass ratio. Utter baloney. Stars orbiting in the main Galactic disk have the same centripetal acceleration as stars going perpendicularly through the halo. In elliptical galaxies, there's no well-oriented plane---so stars orbit every which way. There's no way for F = v x B + q E to account for that. Period.

Ditto on galaxy cluster scales. What fields do you have to plug in to, say, NGC 4889, to make Plasma Cosmology explain its rotation curve? How about NGC 4874? OK, then, good luck explaining why these two galaxies are themselves bound to the Coma Cluster, and why the intergalactic magnetic fields, or whatever, magically happens to make this attraction look like Dark Matter. Oh, and Coma Cluster orbits are isotropic. Please specify the electric and magnetic field vector directions, and show where the current sources are, which explain these orbits.

You can't. You never will. You'll just post another picture of a solar flare, wind, or a magnetosheath and say, "look, plasmas exist!" "Look, the Sun has something to do with plasma!" and draw the unnecessary conclusion "Look, plasmas explain everything!" for the dozenth time.

Please go away. Look, we were talking about dark matter---say, did anyone see the new ACBAR microwave-background results? Incredibly good agreement with standard cosmology out to L=2500. Check it out: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0801.1491 especially figure 5 and 6 on page 11. Wow.