Dark matter and Dark energy

[Dancing David]

Here is a new thread on Arp Objects/QSOs and statistics

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3486378#post3486378

 

[BeAChooser]

If someone ever said they were opening, well, they could be using imprecise language, they could misunderstand it (you evidently do), but there's no requirement that they actuall be open

No requirement? Then by now one would think that *someone* would have told all these mainstream scientists and journals. Just look at all the "imprecise" language they use and misunderstanding they display.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q64134u3u72q3664/ "Magnetic reconnection in the corona and the loop prominence phenomenon, R. A. Kopp and G. W. Pneuman ... snip ... 1976 ... snip ... the flare event then tears open the field lines"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13318114.500-.html "When the solar wind blows: The northern lights are a sign of the awesome power that the Earth receives from the solar wind. The big puzzle is how, 07 March 1992 ... snip ... This is because reconnection also happens in the centre of the tail, converting pairs of open field lines back into closed field lines within the magnetosphere and releasing the stored energy."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n817203820715m76/ " Reconnection on open field lines ahead of coronal mass ejections ... snip ... 1995 ... Plasma and magnetic field signatures from 29 November 1990 indicate that the Ulysses spacecraft passed through a series of interplanetary structures that were most likely formed by magnetic reconnection on open field lines ahead of a coronal mass ejection (CME)."

http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mccoma01/node4.html "Tongues, bottles, and disconnected loops: The opening and closing of the interplanetary magnetic field, David J. McComas, Space and Atmospheric Sciences Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico ... snip ... 1995 ... snip ... 4. Closing of Open Magnetic Field Lines ... snip ... As a consequence, the only reasonable method of reducing the IMF magnitude in interplanetary space seems to be via reconnection between oppositely directed, previously open field lines [ McComas et al., 1989, 1991; McComas, 1994]."

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/95JA02857.shtml " JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 101, NO. A5, PAGES 10,805–10,816, 1996, MHD simulations of the transition of magnetic reconnection from closed to open field lines"

http://books.google.com/books?id=nf...pUqyOYT&sig=I3ecdSkSIpadpdiTij4FyWFrzME&hl=en "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory And Applications by Eric Ronald Priest and Terry Forbes ... snip ... published 2000 ... reconnection is essentially a topological restructuring of a magnetic field caused by a change in the connectivity of its field lines. ... snip ... 11.1 Large-Scale Eruptive Phenomena ... The opening of the field lines in such an active region by a CME leads to the formation of flare ribbons and loops ... snip ... both ribbons and loops are formed by the process of magnetic energy release as open field lines reconnect to become closed loops again. ... snip ... since the CME flux ropes are likely to contain a mixture of both closed and open field lines".

http://www.taborcommunications.com/archives/100178.html "WEATHERING THE SUBSTORM by J. William Bell, NCSA Senior Science Writer, 05/25/01... snip ... This release marks the beginning of the expansion phase, in which the open field lines reconnect to their appropriate pole on the earth."


http://books.google.com/books?id=ZV...=LucBLysBZH63Q2rhRrd05FdKjRo&hl=en#PPA1014,M1 "The Century of Space Science by J. A. M. Bleeker, Johannes Geiss, M. Huber ... snip ... 2001 ... snip ... it was Hoyle's student Dungey (1961) who first applied the reconnection concept to the interaction of the solar wind and the magnetosphere. His famous diagram (Figure 10) showed that, with a southward IMF, magnetospheric field lines may merge with the IMF on the front side, become open, get pulled across the polar cap, and be transferred back into closed field lines at a reconnection site on the rear side."


http://www.irf.se/Publications/IRFreport280.pdf "Proceeding of the Magnetic Reconnection Meeting in Kiruna, Sweden,
September 2002 ... snip ... The distinguishing characteristics of MR are considered to be ... snip ... , and open magnetic field lines ... snip ... Since one of the requirements for MR is open field lines, it should be distinguishable from processes that occur on closed field lines."


http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00009000005001925000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes "A new laboratory experiment on magnetic reconnection, Phys. Plasmas 9, 1925*(2002) ... snip ... R. L. Stenzel, J. M. Urrutia, M. Griskey, and K. Strohmaier, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California ... snip .... In a large laboratory plasma reconnection of three-dimensional (3-D) magnetic fields is studied in the parameter regime of electron magnetohydrodynamics (EMHD). ... snip ... By definition, the change in field topology from closed to open field lines involves reconnection "

http://www.mist.ac.uk/mistg203.html "RAS/MIST discussion meeting, 10th October 2003 ... snip ... Identifying the open-closed field line boundary in magnetospheric and ionospheric data sets"

Space Science*By L. K. Harra, Keith O. Mason ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... Although the importance of reconnection is well recognized, it is fair to say that the microphysics of the diffusion process is not well understood. The causes of local, small-scale breakdown of the flux-freezing theorem which results in diffusion of field lines and the connection of plasma elements from different sources are currently largely unknown and certainly unobserved. ... snip ... The occurance of reconnection in the vicinity of the subsolar dayside magnetopause creates two 'open' magnetic flux tubes, which have one end located in the north and south polar ionospheres, and the other ends out in the solar wind. Just after they have undergone reconnection, these field lines have a sharp kink as they thread through the dayside magnetopause. The magnetic tension of these field lines at the magnetopause acts to try to straighten them. ... snip ... a continual cycle of magnetospheric convection is set up, with open field lines being created by dayside reconnection"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g542121367532401/ " Magnetic Star-Disk Interaction in Classical T Tauri Stars ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... "They found the magnetic field to open up and reconnect periodically, launching a pulsed outflow"

http://books.google.com/books?id=xP...sig=YrBdGl8vsFpFYL_Cq0-QUEuc8n0&hl=en#PPP1,M1 "The Sun, Solar Analogs and the Climate*By Joanna D. Haigh, Michael Lockwood, Mark S. Giampapa, Advanced Course 34, 2004, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy .. snip ... 2.6 The Role of Magnetic Reconnection in the Solar Corona and Inner Heliosphere ... snip ... Where open field lines come into close proximity and have opposite polarity, reconnection can take place at an X-line ... snip ... Wang, et. al. (1996) show how field lines must be opened at the leading edge of a coronal hole extension by reconnection of this type and then close again at its trailing edge ... snip ...

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/425126 "The Origin of Postflare Loops, N. R. Sheeley, Jr., H. P. Warren, and Y.-M. Wang... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... we conclude that postflare loops are the end result of the formation, filling, deceleration, and cooling of magnetic loops produced by the reconnection of field lines blown open in the flare."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...f+"open+field+lines"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us "The importance of open field lines for the generation of daytime rayed aurora and plasma turbulence, E. M. Blixt, K. Oksavik, T. Grydeland, A. Stromme, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 7, 9-2-2005"

http://www.nersc.gov/news/science/reconnection.php "Understanding Magnetic Explosions, On December 6, 2006, Global Positioning System (GPS) devices suddenly started malfunctioning all over the Earth. The culprit: a solar flare. ... snip ... The basic idea is that the churning of ionized gas amplifies the magnetic fields in a plasma by twisting and folding them—kinetic energy being converted into magnetic energy. When the magnetic field lines touch or cross, they break, reconnect, and reverse direction ... snip ... Constantly in motion, the field lines sometimes touch or cross and reverse direction in a process called magnetic reconnection. Open field lines instead of loops show that plasma is being ejected outward as a solar flare."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ld+lines+are+opened"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us "Ionospheric signatures of the low-latitude boundary layer under
conditions of northward IMF and small clock angle ... snip ... 2006 ... snip ... Under conditions of south-
ward IMF closed field lines are opened by reconnection near the equatorial magnetopause."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...lines"+reconnection&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us "CORONAL MAGNETIC FIELD TOPOLOGY OVER FILAMENT CHANNELS: IMPLICATION FOR CORONAL MASS EJECTION INITIATIONS, Yan Li and Janet Luhmann ... snip ... 2006 ... snip ... It seems difficult for the eruption process to open the field lines and at the same time to release energy. The so-called breakout model (Antiochos 1998; Antiochos etal.1999) solves this problem ... snip ... through magnetic reconnection between the large-scale overlying arcade and lower central arcade immediately over the sheared structure to let out the eruption."

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrsp-2008-1/ "Flare Observations by Arnold O.*Benz, Institute of Astronomy, ETH ... snip ... 3.1 Geometry of the coronal magnetic field ... snip ... While there is nearly unanimous agreement that sheared or anti-parallel magnetic fields provide the flare energy released in an impulsive reconnection, the geometry of these magnetic fields in the corona at large scale is not clear. The prevalent view is depicted in Figures*13 and*16 (left), as well as illustrated by a coronagraph image in Figure*16 (right). The scenario has evolved over the past four decades and is generally credited to Carmichael(1964), Sturrock(1966), Hirayama(1974), and Kopp and Pneuman(1976). So it also named CSHKP model after these scientists. It is basically a two-dimensional geometry, involving a magnetic loop that is pinched at its legs. The loop may be extremely large or moving outward, so that its legs consist of oppositely directed (anti-parallel) fields. As a result of reconnection, the top of the loop is ejected as a plasmoid. ... snip ... This suggests that in a third of all flares at least one of the four ends of reconnecting field lines is open. ... snip ... The energy release by open and a closed field lines, termed interchange reconnection, has been proposed some time ago (Heyvaerts et al., 1977; Fisk et al., 1999) and applied more recently to in situ observations in a CME (Crooker and Webb, 2006)."

http://www.physics.soton.ac.uk/teach/year4/notes/phys6004/PHYS6004f8.doc "SPACE PLASMA PHYSICS – Consequences of reconnection: convection ... snip ... the open field lines produced by magnetopause reconnection ... snip ... where they can be opened again by reconnection and so start another cycle. We call this large scale circulation of magnetic flux (with its frozen-in plasma) “convection”. This was also the origin of the concept of magnetic reconnection, made by Jim Dungey in 1953 (published in 1961)."

And I could go on and on and on listing examples like this (after all, I only quoted from the first few pages in Google searches numbering 1000's of pages of hits). So, Ziggurat, I'd say I have ample reason to believe the mainstream claims magnetic reconnection opens field lines or at the very least requires open fields lines exist in order to close them.

So now the question is whether Gauss' law precludes open field lines. Let's first repeat what wikipedia says about Gauss' law and field lines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field "Gauss's law for magnetism" states that the magnetic field is solenoidal (has zero divergence). This is equivalent to the simple statement that, in any field-line depiction of a magnetic field, the field lines cannot have starting or ending points; they must form a closed loop, or else extend to infinity on both ends."

That seems pretty clear. And I believe you agreed with the statement that open fields lines are not allowed. Does anyone else agree with this? Sure ... lot's of folks OUTSIDE THE ASTROPHYSICS COMMUNITY (and the fusion community that has been contaminated by them). For example ...

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations "The structure of the magnetic field ... snip ... This equation only works if the integral is done over a closed surface. This equation says, that in every volume the sum of the incoming magnetic field lines equuals the sum of the outgoing magnetical field lines. This means that the magnetic field lines must be closed loops."

http://www.yorku.ca/marko/ComPhys/Ampere/Ampere.html "Magnetic field lines are always closed. One can formulate Gauss' law for magnetism, but given that there is no equivalent of charges (permanent magnets are always dipoles), the magnetic flux through closed surfaces always vanishes."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node78.html "Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields ... snip ... Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end."

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node116.html "Maxwell's Equations ... snip ... The second equation is the magnetic equivalent of Gauss' law (see Sect.*8.10). This equation describes how the non-existence of magnetic monopoles causes magnetic field-lines to form closed loops."

http://books.google.com/books?id=bR...sig=KBXVn0S68FN0msmbpuaMwS1KHxA&hl=en#PPT4,M1 "The Physics Companion by Anthony C. Fischer-Cripps ... snip ... 2003 ... snip ... It is a peculiar property of magnetic field lines that they always form closed loops. ... snip ... 3.7.4 Maxwell's equations ... magnetic field lines always form closed loops. ... snip ... Magnetic field lines always close upon themselves. ... snip ... Gauss' law for magnetism says that for any closed surface in space, the total magnetic flux is zero meaning that all magnetic flux lines join up with themselves."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+field+lines"+closed&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us "Gauss’ Law and Magnetism, Kevin Paulson, Department of Engineering, University of Hull ... snip ... • Magnetic field lines do not begin or end, but always close like a circle."

http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/ 79E24C10-1A35-4365-856D-A7316B3EBD2E/0/4_05_2002_edited.pdf "April 5, 2002 ... snip ... Gauss’ Law for Magnetic Fields ... snip ... Magnetic Field lines are always closed"

http://books.google.com/books?id=6P...sig=Qbe5ydrn-QQxIF3R1NRHH3bTgsE&hl=en#PPP1,M1 "Introduction to Electromagnetic Compatibility by Clayton R. Paul, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineeering ... snip ... 2006 ... is Gauss' law for the magnetic field, stated in integral form ... snip ... This result implies that all magnetic field lines form closed paths"

http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys136d/modules/m7/Ampere.htm "The third of Maxwell's equations tells us that there are no magnetic charges, and therefore no sources and sinks for the magnetic field.* The net flux of the magnetic field through any closed surface is zero.* All the field lines that enter through the surface into a volume enclosed by the surface also exit through the surface. Magnetic field lines always are closed loops."

http://people.rit.edu/agysps/courses/313_062web/exam_info/finalinfo.htm " Final Exam info, Wednesday, 28 Feb 2007 ... snip ... GL for magnetism -- no magnetic monopoles; magnetic field lines form closed loops (pen must stay on paper)"

http://www.phys.uri.edu/~gerhard/PHY204/tsl236.pdf "Gauss' Law for Magnetic Field ... snip ... Magnetic field lines always close in themselves."

http://ww.stjohnshigh.org/~fborchelt/ index_files/ap_physics_chapters_29_30_31.ppt ... snip ... Chapter 29* Magnetic Fields & Forces ... snip ... Gauss’s Law for magnetism is similar, using a Gaussian surface • implies that magnetic field lines MUST be closed loops, not lines, that both enter and exit the Gaussian surface"

http://www.geocities.com/iamlad/physicsmain.html "Lori Dalton's Physics Page ... snip ... Gauss's Law in Magnetism: This equation states that the net magnetic flux through a closed surface is zero. In other words, magnetic field lines do not begin or end anywhere and thus must be looped."

So you see? I think I also have ample reason to suspect that the concept of open field lines ... invented by astrophysicists to explain phenomena they couldn't otherwise explain (only because they never considered such phenomena as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches) ... is indeed a violation of Gauss' law. Which is perhaps why after 30 years of research astrophysicists are still having considerable trouble understanding how it actually works and proving that it does work at the speeds required in their labs.

Link doesn't work

Sorry. Try this instead:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

Whoever this guy is, either he's talking about a specific field configuration which is NOT in fact a generalized scenario of magnetic reconnection, or he made an elementary and rather major mistake.

Well "this guy" happens to have a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and taught EE (i.e., Maxwell's laws) at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst from 1959 until 1998. And you'll note the above paper is in a peer reviewed IEEE journal ... which makes me wonder why none of the electrical engineers and plasma experts who undoubtedly reviewed it happened to catch what you claim is an elementary and major mistake.

Furthermore, a Nobel Prize winning electrical engineer named Hannes Alfven, who was also a renowned expert in plasma physics and who invented MHD, totally agrees with "this guy" on this matter. Magnetic reconnection is bogus and Gauss' law is being violated by those who promote it.

Now if you want to talk about a major mistake, perhaps you should address why mainstream astrophysicists have been talking about open field lines when discussing magnetic reconnection for 30 years now if what you say is so obvious and true. It sure is fortunate that you've finally come along to set them straight.

 

[robinson]

I can hardly wait! At last, somebody is going to explain how the laws of physics have changed.

 

[Zeuzzz]

What would Maxwell make of all this reconnection melarchy then? I dont think he would like his most fundamental properties of magnetism to be changed to account for this energy we observe being released. Surely there has to be a more likely explanation than one that changes something as well established as the laws of magnetism?


Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007

The notion that magnetic field lines can be open ended is impossible to reconcile with Maxwell’s simple and universal equation and the vast body of experiments that led to it. At any instant of time, the net sum of all magnetic flux entering any closed surface A is zero. The closed surface can be of any size or shape. Therefore, there can be no beginning or end to a magnetic field anywhere.

[latex]\nabla.B=0[/latex]

or in integral form (Gauss’ law for magnetism) given by

[latex] \oint\vec{B}.d\vec{A}=0 [/latex]

Whatever magnetic flux enters the closed surface also leaves it. There is no way to store magnetic flux inside the volume that is defined by the closed surface. Every magnetic field is a continuum, i.e., a vector field. Each of the infinite and uncountable points in this continuum has a magnitude and a direction that is associated with it. This continuum is not composed of (does not contain) a set of discrete lines. Lines are sometimes drawn on paper to describe the magnetic field (its direction and magnitude). However, the lines themselves do not actually exist in reality. They are simply a visualization device, i.e., a useful way to understand the properties of a vector field. The loci are always endless (closed) loops. There is only one “type of magnetic field line.” They are useful abstractions and nothing more.

Heres and animation of roughly what is claimed to be occuring in magnetic reconnection; http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/i...tion-4_195.gif

They are quite literally trying to claim that magnetic field lines make and break connection and thereby release energy. Magnetic fields do not do that. They only form as a full continuum and they can't make and break connections like electrical circuits. They are mistaken in their basis premise which is why Alfven himself ridiculed the idea. The worst part in my opinion is they keep trying to use MHD theory to support this idea, even though Alfven publicly rejected the idea.

The father of MHD theory claimed it was false. Now they turn right around and try to use MHD theory to support the idea using *uncontrolled* observations from space, and have not demonstrated this reconnection actually occuring in a lab.

Dont get me wrong, there obviously is a phenomenon that is creating the energy observed in the various experiments conducted at princeto, I just dispute that it has anything to do with 'magnetic reconnection' as such. I have read all the material at http://mrx.pppl.gov/ from the experiemtns, and they seem to fall short of actually demonstrating the actual 'reconnection' taking place. Once i see the actual data from experiments that clearly shows the magnetic field lines reconnecting, not the just the mathematics of the theory, i will reconsider my opinion. So far i have not. If someone could find it, that would be brilliant.



The main difference is that if magnetic fields can not be open ended (as maxwells equations certainly imply) that should mean that these magnetic fields are connecting stellar bodies through the IPM, which gives quite a different idea than the conventional approach that the magnetic field lines end on intermolecular clouds. This connection between stars is what currently most astronomers seem unwilling to accept, and so because of this have to postulate that magnetic fields are open and do not connect between bodies in space. However Alfven et al didn't see the sun as a closed system, that makes a big difference in how one looks at the universe.

Many facile observations indicate that this is likely the case, and the IPN contains much more EM activity, and connections between interstellar bodies, than previously realized.

 

[Ziggurat]

No requirement?

Indeed. I already showed you an example of such a field. And you keep ignoring it. Are you on a quest to prove you're stupid or something?

Just look at all the "imprecise" language they use and misunderstanding they display.

Sloppiness with language is a fairly common human failing. I note, once again, that while you can point to the frequent use of the term "open field", you cannot actually point to a field with nonzero divergence. That is the mathematical test. That is the thing which is nonambiguous. That is not subject to abuses or carelessness with language. And that is what Gauss's law for magnetism actually says. But you can't find any such field, can you?

So now the question is whether Gauss' law precludes open field lines.

Gauss's law precludes a nonzero divergence of the magnetic field. THAT is a precise mathematical description of the law in question. If you equate open field lines with nonzero divergence (which is a reasonable way to define it), then that question is well settled, and not a point of contention between us. If you're sloppy and mean the term in some other fashion, then maybe you can. I really don't care. The real test is not the word "open". The real test is the math: is the divergence nonzero? All you have to do to demonstrate that astrophysicists are violating Gauss's law is to show a magnetic field with a nonzero divergence. If you can't show that, you've demonstrated nothing beyond sloppy use of language.

So you see? I think I also have ample reason to suspect that the concept of open field lines ... invented by astrophysicists to explain phenomena they couldn't otherwise explain (only because they never considered such phenomena as Birkeland currents, double layers, exploding double layers and z-pinches) ... is indeed a violation of Gauss' law.

One of your primary objections was that magnetic reconnection violated Gauss's law. I demonstrated that you could do it without any such violation. You have failed to respond to that. Why is that? Because you're dishonest. You will not admit that you were simply wrong about that.

If you want to convince me that astrophysicists are really violating Gauss's law, show me the field. Don't show me words which might imply such a thing, show me the actual field. Demonstrate that the divergence is nonzero. Do that, and there's no debate, you will have proven beyond a doubt that the field in question is impossible. Fail to do that, and you will convince no one except your fellow believers.

Well "this guy" happens to have a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute and taught EE (i.e., Maxwell's laws) at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst from 1959 until 1998.

That's nice. Funny, thing, though: like you, his objections seem to center almost entirely around the language used. I haven't read every single line in that paper, but so far I haven't encountered any examples of errors in actual calculations.

And you'll note the above paper is in a peer reviewed IEEE journal ... which makes me wonder why none of the electrical engineers and plasma experts who undoubtedly reviewed it happened to catch what you claim is an elementary and major mistake.

Carelessness, perhaps. But the statement is clearly wrong. Trivial example: uniform current density through a cylindrical wire. The current is nonzero at the center, but symmetry requires that the field be zero. It is a neutral point with current. The statement is wrong, proven so by trivial counterexample. No argument from authority (which, really, is what you're trying to do here - oh the irony) will save a clearly false statement. And in the example of the field I gave, when a does not equal b, the curl of the field at (0,0) is also not zero, and so the current at the neutral point is likewise nonzero.

Furthermore, a Nobel Prize winning electrical engineer named Hannes Alfven, who was also a renowned expert in plasma physics and who invented MHD, totally agrees with "this guy" on this matter. Magnetic reconnection is bogus and Gauss' law is being violated by those who promote it.

And yet, references are always to the language, never to the math. Funny thing, that. Show me a nonzero divergence - not the words "open field" but the math - and I'll believe you that whoever came up with that field is wrong. Until then, I've got no reason to take an argument from authority - especially coming from you - at all seriously.

Now if you want to talk about a major mistake, perhaps you should address why mainstream astrophysicists have been talking about open field lines when discussing magnetic reconnection for 30 years now if what you say is so obvious and true.

Why should I bother to comment further, when you will not even address the field I gave you which demonstrates magnetic reconnection without violating Gauss's law, which you claimed was impossible? When I've proven you wrong on the topic already, why is the burden of proof on me alone? If that post of mine was wrong, it should be trivial to demonstrate the errors I made. But if I'm not wrong, then you should admit it. But you won't, because you're fundamentally dishonest. You are a Believer^TM, and no amount of facts or reality can penetrate your shield of belief.

 

[Ziggurat]

What would Maxwell make of all this reconnection melarchy then? I dont think he would like his most fundamental properties of magnetism to be changed to account for this energy we observe being released. Surely there has to be a more likely explanation than one that changes something as well established as the laws of magnetism?

Funny thing, but the objections to reconnection always and only seem to involve the language used to describe it. I have yet to see an objection based upon taking the actual calculations used and demonstrating how the math is wrong. You keep saying that reconnection violates Gauss's law for magnetism, but I've already proven it can be done without any such violations, by providing a field which does exactly that. Look up posts 521 and 522.

You are, in short, not in the least bit credible when you continue to raise objections which have been disproven by counterexample in this very thread.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
First, how can something that isn't influenced by EM have much of a "thermal" distribution? Can you explain that?

It's got mass. So maybe it interacted with the Higgs bosons. There aren't really any free Higgs bosons flying around now, but there would have been early enough.

Looks to me like you just had to invent another magic gnome to handle a problem that your other magic gnomes created. And by the way ... in case you forgot ... there is still no proof that Higgs bosons actually exist.

The vacuum EM field has thermal properties, and so IF something interacts via EM effects (which is most matter)

But not the bulk of your hypothetical dark matter (which IS most matter according to the mainstream).

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dark_matter_animated_030415-1.html "Dark Matter Exposed ... snip ... April 2003 ... snip ... Dark matter particles appear not to interact with electromagnetic forces, however. They don't make or reflect light, which explains why they can't be seen."

http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~webiaef/outreach/posters/darkmatter/ "Dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, so that it does not emit, absorb or reflect light."

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/801 "Dark matter is matter that does not interact with electromagnetic radiation"

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/030720a.html "All non-baryonic dark matter candidates interact very weakly with each other and with ordinary matter: They cannot have strong nuclear or electromagnetic interaction, by definition. They can interact via weak nuclear force, which is the case with neutrinos. However, this force is so weak a neutrino can go through a chunk of lead a light year thick without being stopped. So, non-baryonic dark matter particles cannot be slowed down, except by gravity."

And alternately, they can't be sped up by anything, except gravity. Right?

Look up the definition of entropy and temperature. You will find that they refer to the energy of the system and the density of states, but they do not specify the form that energy takes.

But we were talking about a "thermal distribution". My dictionary says "thermal" relates to heat. Temperature is merely a manifestation of heat energy. And heat is related to transfer of kinetic energy which can be done in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection. Every single one of those ways involves EM.

Quote:
Second, even if it can, that doesn't mean they still wouldn't be "essentially" at rest compared to escape velocity.

That depends upon the individual particle's masses. If they're light enough (like neutrinos), that will pretty much always be the case. But even with ordinary matter, it's only through the loss of energy that most of it was ever able to condense out of clouds into more compact forms, so we don't even need to assume that dark matter was super-light.

But if dark matter started out with escape velocity from other dark matter particles, and nothing else interacts with it, then wouldn't the bulk of dark matter still be speeding around at escape velocity? And wouldn't that be apparent in observations? It would seem a little hard to claim that dark and ordinary matter are bound to one another gravitationally in galaxies but one is zipping around much faster than the other. Or are you about to invent yet another gnome?

News flash: there's no solution in general relativity that tells us where ordinary matter came from either.

I suspect Narlikar would disagree with you. But then his solution to general relativity equation is one that the mainstream community has mostly ignored. Maybe because it does away with many of their gnomes.

But irregardless, my point stands. You can at least tell us how ordinary matter supposedly came into being from the energy released in the Big Bang. You have a process describing it's creation. You have nothing of the sort in the case of Dark Matter. It's just *there* and has to have been *there* very soon after the Big Bang. So as I said, you know even less about the creation of dark matter than you do dark matter.

If dark matter theories are correct

IF? Why the doubt, Ziggurat? I keep getting told by your side of this debate that there is no longer any question that dark matter exists.

 

[ben m]

But we were talking about a "thermal distribution". My dictionary says "thermal" relates to heat. Temperature is merely a manifestation of heat energy. And heat is related to transfer of kinetic energy which can be done in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection. Every single one of those ways involves EM.

Sorry to contradict your high-school physics textbook, but "thermal distributions" are any distribution described by a Boltzmann-like energy distribution, not just those they demonstrated over the Bunsen burner. The velocity distribution of stars in a globular cluster is "thermal", because the appropriate Maxwellian is a natural-ish final state for self-gravitating systems. Similarly, dark matter is perfectly capable of thermalizing via gravitational interactions.

But if dark matter started out with escape velocity from other dark matter particles, and nothing else interacts with it, then wouldn't the bulk of dark matter still be speeding around at escape velocity?

Nope, sorry, that's not how it works. "Escape velocity" isn't some fixed quantity, it changes as densities evolve. A star, dwarf galaxy, dark matter particle, etc., can fall into a nascent galaxy and speed up to the escape velocity on the way in. Before it gets out, though, the galaxy has grown---and the outgoing star/particle/whatever faces a higher escape velocity.

C'mon, BAC, if you are going to argue against the "current paradigm", please put some effort into finding actual holes in the paradigm, rather than listing every detail that five seconds' thought hasn't resolved for you.

But irregardless, my point stands. You can at least tell us how ordinary matter supposedly came into being from the energy released in the Big Bang. You have a process describing it's creation. You have nothing of the sort in the case of Dark Matter. It's just *there* and has to have been *there* very soon after the Big Bang.

Again, BAC, you're picking up "Hey, I don't know the answer to X" and jumping to "I bet X is a total mystery to blinkered mainstream physicists".

The standard dark matter model is very clear about where the DM comes from; the early big bang is known to be very hot. At z=1000 it's hot enough that (known) atomic physics can create UV photons. At z=100000 it's hot enough that (known) nuclear physics can break up nuclei at make e+ e- pairs. At z=10,000,000,000, it's hot enough that (known) particle physics makes Z and W bosons, neutrinos, bottom quarks, etc., very easily. The standard dark matter model says that at z=10^14 (or some very high number) the Universe is hot enough to produce dark-matter via the "weak interaction", which is (known) not to be weak at high energies. This is Page 1 of any book on cosmology; it's the third slide in every dark-matter seminar; etc. Sorry you hadn't heard.

Please stop guessing about what you imagine physicists haven't thought of. You haven't guessed right yet.

 

[Ziggurat]

Looks to me like you just had to invent another magic gnome

The Higgs boson? I didn't invent it. In fact, cosmologists didn't invent it either. It's part of the standard model. And we should know in not too long whether it exists.

And by the way ... in case you forgot ... there is still no proof that Higgs bosons actually exist.

I'm well aware of that. Because of the predicted mass, that's pretty much to be expected. But if it does exist, it won't remain undiscovered indefinitely.

But not the bulk of your hypothetical dark matter (which IS most matter according to the mainstream).

So? What's your point? You thought thermal distributions required EM interactions. You were wrong (for example, nuclear force interactions can create thermalization too, if you're sufficiently hot and dense enough). End of story.

And alternately, they can't be sped up by anything, except gravity. Right?

Wrong. Higgs bosons probably can do it. Won't happen now since there aren't any zooming around free, but there would have been early enough.

But we were talking about a "thermal distribution". My dictionary says "thermal" relates to heat.

Yes.

Temperature is merely a manifestation of heat energy.

Not quite. Temperature is the inverse of the energy derivative of entropy. That's why negative temperatures are possible for some systems (such as paramagnets in a magnetic field), but negative temperatures are high-energy ("hot") states.

And heat is related to transfer of kinetic energy

No. It's the transfer of energy by means other than macroscopic work. Look it up in a thermodynamics textbook if you're curious, I've got one sitting right in front of me. Heat can definitely be stored in internal kinetic energy, but it also gets stored in other forms (such as magnetic moments, increased potential energy states for electrons, etc). Once again, the fact that you cannot understand anything deeper than writing intended for a non-scientific audience (and which therefore often leaves out quite a bit for simplicity) becomes quite clear.

which can be done in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection. Every single one of those ways involves EM.

All three of those can involve EM. But any interaction which can transfer energy will do, and "radiation" is actually a more general term than simply electromagnetic radiation (if it weren't, that term would be redundant). The Higgs boson might do for transfering heat, if you were at high enough energy densities.

But if dark matter started out with escape velocity from other dark matter particles, and nothing else interacts with it, then wouldn't the bulk of dark matter still be speeding around at escape velocity?

Escape velocity with respect to what? Other individual particles of dark matter and ordinary matter? Or to galaxy-sized clumps or matter/dark matter? You can satisfy the former without satisfying the latter. Jeeze, this is basic stuff, and you can't wrap your head around it.

I suspect Narlikar would disagree with you. But then his solution to general relativity equation is one that the mainstream community has mostly ignored.

But solving the equations of general relativity isn't enough to get any picture of what the mass of the universe is made of, and I seriously doubt that's all he did. Particle physics isn't part of general relativity - not in the standard picture, and not in any of the alternatives. You can use it along with general relativity to make a cosmology model, but the physics is still distinct. So I'm afraid all you've done is reveal, yet again, that you're clueless.

IF?

Yes, if: if they're right about the properties they think it has. That takes more than just knowing more matter exists than we can see.

 

[BeAChooser]

This might affect distance measurements of type 1a supernovae because those measurements are based upon brightness, and not on redshift.

The significance of this is that it very well could eliminate the need for dark energy since it's existence was first inferred as a result of Type 1a supernova observations. But I wonder ... would the mainstream ever be willing to give up one of its gnomes after they spent so much time believing in it's existance?

The existence of iron whiskers in space also has implications as far as the source of the CMB is concerned too. And you know where that might lead.

 

[Ziggurat]

The significance of this is that it very well could eliminate the need for dark energy since it's existence was first inferred as a result of Type 1a supernova observations. But I wonder ... would the mainstream ever be willing to give up one of its gnomes after they spent so much time believing in it's existance?

Why not? At this point, it's just a parameter - if it happens to be zero, so much the better.

The existence of iron whiskers in space also has implications as far as the source of the CMB is concerned too. And you know where that might lead.

Yes, I do: nowhere. Such wiskers would not be a perfect blackbody, and their temperature would not be so close to uniform. They cannot provide the CMB.

I know you like to think the big bang theory is on the verge of collapsing, but it simply isn't. But it's nice to see your denial never lets up. Tell me, when were you planning on addressing the reconnection field I posted?

 

[BeAChooser]

Sloppiness with language is a fairly common human failing.

Consider the sheer improbability that you are the only mainstream proponent that doesn't use the sloppy terminology of "open field lines" or claim that "opening field lines" and "closing open field lines" is at the core of magnetic reconnection phenomena. Consider the sheer improbability that so many electrical engineers and plasma scientists outside the astrophysics profession could be so wrong when they state unequivocally that Gauss' Law says magnetic field lines MUST remained closed at all times (or go off to infinity in both directions). Instead of wasting your time dealing with me, you really should contact each and every one of the above and set them straight. I'm sure they'd be highly appreciative.

 

[Ziggurat]

Instead of wasting your time dealing with me, you really should contact each and every one of the above and set them straight.

Why? If the fields they use have zero divergence, what's the problem? Have you once demonstrated that a field they use has nonzero divergence? Nope. Has any of your sources shown that the actual field they use has a nonzero divergence? Nope. Which makes that a semantic debate of little relevance and even less interest. The math is unambiguous, and it's the one thing you've never been able to deal with. Hide all you want to, but I gave PROOF that what you claimed was impossible is, in fact, quite possible. So retract your claim, if you've got even a shred of intellectual honesty.

 

[BeAChooser]

The standard dark matter model is very clear about where the DM comes from ... snip ... The standard dark matter model says that at z=10^14 (or some very high number) the Universe is hot enough to produce dark-matter via the "weak interaction", which is (known) not to be weak at high energies.

Maybe you should inform these folks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model "(Lambda-CDM) says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter[/b], dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance."

Oh yes ... regarding WIMPS ... seen any yet? I hear the experiments just keep ruling out possible ranges of parameters. For example ...

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1268423/physicists_look_for_dark_matter/index.html "Physicists Look For Dark Matter, 25 February 2008 ... snip ... Scientists of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment today announced that they have regained the lead in the worldwide race to find the particles that make up dark matter. ... snip ... “We have achieved the world’s most stringent limits on how often dark matter particles interact with ordinary matter and how heavy they are, in particular in the theoretically favored mass range of more than 40 times the proton mass. Our experiment is now sensitive enough to hear WIMPs even if they ring the ‘bells’ of our crystal germanium detector only twice a year. So far, we have heard nothing.” ... snip ... "We were disappointed about not seeing WIMPs this time. But the absence of background in our sample shows the power of our detectors as we enter into very interesting territory,” said CDMS co-spokesperson Bernard Sadoulet, of the University of California, Berkeley."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/dnal-cet020808.php "14-Feb-2008 ... snip ... Scientists working on the COUPP experiment at the Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory today (February 14) announced a new development in the quest to observe dark matter. ... snip ... “We expect that COUPP will soon have a sweeping sensitivity to dark matter particles, simultaneously exploring both spin-dependent and spin-independent mechanisms for dark matter interaction. ... snip ... Physicists theorize that dark matter particles interact with ordinary matter via different mechanisms that are either dependent or independent of the nuclear spin of the atoms in the detector material. Previous experiments had severely constrained the possibility that the DAMA observations result from dark matter spin-independent interactions. COUPP has now ruled out the last region of parameter space that allowed for a spin-dependent explanation. Several experiments worldwide, including DAMA itself, had been racing to prove or disprove DAMA’s initial claim to observe WIMPs. If the DAMA result had been due to spin-dependent WIMPs, then COUPP researchers should have found hundreds of WIMPs. They found none above background. ... snip ... “No one knows for sure if dark matter is made of WIMPs,” said Andrew Sonnenschein, COUPP collaborator.”

And perhaps we'll even have a definitive answer very soon:

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR08/Event/82738 "2008 APS April Meeting and HEDP/HEDLA Meeting ... snip ... Abstract: B5.00002 : The race to detect WIMP dark matter with liquid noble-based detectors ... snip ... The direct search for WIMP dark matter is on the verge of a major increase in sensitivity, in particular due to the advent of detectors based on liquified noble elements. ... snip ... These technologies and the proposed DUSEL underground laboratory offer an unprecedented opportunity for dark matter searches with sensitive masses up to at least 10 tons. This would provide a nearly- complete test of dark matter at the weak scale."

 

[arthwollipot]

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh yes ... regarding WIMPS ... seen any yet?

Yes. They're called neutrinos. Neutrinos are dark matter. They're a small fraction of the dark matter that's out there, but they are dark matter, and they are WIMPs. But thanks for sharing.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Looks to me like you just had to invent another magic gnome

The Higgs boson? I didn't invent it.

True but I think you may have invented a new use for it. Propping up the dark matter gnome.

 

[Ziggurat]

True but I think you may have invented a new use for it.

You are, once again, wrong. Quite a few particle physicists think that discovering the Higgs may help solve the mystery of dark matter. And that comes from the Standard Model, something you evidently know nothing about.

So when are you going to admit you were wrong that reconnection necessarily violates Gauss's law? I haven't forgotten.

 

[sol invictus]

Reconnection exists. It has been experimentally demonstrated. It is consistent with Maxwell's equations - scratch that, it is REQUIRED by Maxwell's equations given the right kind of current source. It does not involve magnetic field lines "ending" or "breaking" in any ordinary sense, although those words are ambiguous (being words rather than equations) and may be used in more than one way in different contexts (particularly when talking to laypeople that don't understand the math).

Deal with it.

 

[Reality Check]

BeAChooser
The Scorpus search engine has a handful (11) citations to Anthony Peratt so I would say that the reason that there are "NO peer reviewed papers directly challenging the peer reviewed calculations of Peratt with regards to galactic rotation" is that those papers are being ignored which is a comment on how important they are.