Something new under the sun

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz: I have many questions about Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (cosmic plasma filaments + enormous Birkeland currents + a ball of plasma result in plasmoids that look like galaxies). The main one is:

Why does he compare the results of his computer simulation which are plasma density graphs to optical photographs of galaxies?

Optical photographs of galaxies show their apparent shape. Galaxies are actually disk shaped. Spiral galaxies have spiral arms in photographs because these are regions of star formation (lots of young, bright stars). There are a couple of theories (not mutually exclusive) for this -the density waves model and the shock waves model.
The density of matter does not drop to very low values between the arms as suggested by Peratt's plasma density graphs and the plasmoid experiments that he bases his simulation on.

Others are

• Why don't we see this happening?
• Are cosmic plasma filaments associated with galaxies? There are images of cosmic plasma filaments (not to be confused with the cosmological filaments of galaxies) that have structures in them that look like the result of Birkeland currents. But I have not seen any evidence of associated galaxies.

 

[Ziggurat]

There is nothing wrong with Scott's statement in the context that he uses it, for the point he is describing when he makes this statement it holds true.

No, it doesn't. He's wrong, his statement is wrong, and there's no "context" which can make it right.

I agree with Ziggurats statement that by using a wire, in a geometric sense given various conditions (ie, uniform current density, perfectly circular and symetrical wire) you could produce a theoretical neutral line at the very centre of the wire, but since this line is achieved by cancelling the magnetic field vectors it has no 3D extent, and thus can carry no current.

Yes, the line with zero magnetic field is a one-dimensional object. But so is the neutral point in the examples he's considering, in case you didn't notice. You ALWAYS have to integrate over a finite spatial extent for any real system if you want to get a nonzero current, because current densities are never infinite. Surely the author of the paper is aware of this. So it makes absolutely no sense to talk about the current being zero at a point on account of the current density being finite, which is essentially what you're arguing in an attempt to brush that mistake under the rug. But the irony is that such an absurd argument still doesn't rescue that mistake, since he said the current had to be zero at and near the neutral point, meaning we can integrate over an area around the neutral point and still get no current. Which the case of a wire of uniform current density disproves.

So there is nothing directly wrong with Ziggurats statement in a theoretical sense, although I would say it is misleading.

There's nothing wrong with my statement in any sense, and there's absolutely nothing misleading about it. Rather, you're arguing that the paper is not wrong because it is merely misleading. But as I explained above, even that argument falls apart.

 

[Tubbythin]

What seems more likely, one of plasmas many effects in the cosmos giving the values of the CMB wavelength spectrum, anisotropy spectrum, and polarization mode spectrum or a Big Bang that happened 13.7 billion years ago, was created out of nothing, and requires three hypothetical entities (inflation field, dark matter, dark energy field) to even work in the first place?

You can't even name which plasma effect could be responsible!
No numbers, no equations: no theory.

 

[Dancing David]

What seems more likely, one of plasmas many effects in the cosmos giving the values of the CMB wavelength spectrum, anisotropy spectrum, and polarization mode spectrum or a Big Bang that happened 13.7 billion years ago, was created out of nothing, and requires three hypothetical entities (inflation field, dark matter, dark energy field) to even work in the first place?

Really , out of nothing? was created out of unknowable at this time?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Yes, the line with zero magnetic field is a one-dimensional object. But so is the neutral point in the examples he's considering, in case you didn't notice. You ALWAYS have to integrate over a finite spatial extent for any real system if you want to get a nonzero current, because current densities are never infinite. Surely the author of the paper is aware of this.

I agree with all of that, and i'm sure that he is aware of this.

I thought that the argument was that there can be no current at a neutral point/line?

I am saying that that is an erroneus position to take from the beginning as there can be no flow of current at any single point or line.

But the irony is that such an absurd argument still doesn't rescue that mistake, since he said the current had to be zero at and near the neutral point, meaning we can integrate over an area around the neutral point and still get no current. Which the case of a wire of uniform current density disproves.

I think we are picking semantics here. I'm sure that someone as experienced in electrical engineering as himself is aware that there is no current at a neutral point, but this will increase from zero as you travel outwards. So you could say that the electrical current right next to a neutral point is 'negligable', or you could say that none exists. Again i'm sure that he is well aware of this.

Donald E. Scott received the Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees from the University
of Connecticut, Storrs, and the Ph.D. degree from Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, Worcester, MA, all in electrical engineering.
He was with General Electric (LSTG) in Schenectady, NY, and Pittsfield,
MA (Lightning Arrester Division). From 1959 to 1998, he was a member
of the faculty of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He was, at various times, an Assistant
Department Head, the Director of the undergraduate program, the Graduate
Admissions Coordinator, and the Director of the College of Engineering’s
Video Instructional Program. In 1984, he was a Guest Lecturer in the School
of Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He is the author of An
Introduction To Circuit Analysis—A Systems Approach (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, 1987) and The Electric Sky—A Challenge to the Myths of Modern
Astronomy (Mikamar Publishing, 2006). This latest work details and expands
on the theme of this paper, and addresses the legitimacy of many of the
assumptions, hypothetical entities, and forces that are required by presently
accepted nonelectrical gravity-only-based theories of astrophysics.
Dr. Scott was the recipient of several good-teaching awards.

People seem to being a bit pedantic about Scotts paper, picking out one sentence from his work and spending posts debating whether he has used 100% percent correct terminology. The point that we are now debating has little to do with the original reasons I quoted that paper, or even any of the material that is directly addressed in it.

I have found many spelling errors and bad terminology in other peer reviewed publications, but that does not discount the main bulk of the work.

Ziggurat, if a charge were to move across a neutral line, do you agree that the line is no longer neutral and has to change shape to account for this?

 

[Dancing David]

Much of this is the same as what is observed, they are not changing things that we know for sure, nor are they coming up with a new explanation for everything, they interpret certain specific things differently.

In relation to your questions though, Alfven did have some theories on the formation of stars, there have been some papers published on the Z-pinch morphology of supernovae and some about interesting trends in local supernovae times, the dynamics of the galaxy are currently thought to be a mix of gravitation and plasma forces, compact objects are still made of plasma and need not be so mysterious, or spin so fast (in the case of millisecond pulsars!) and cosmic rays are thought to originate from the E-fields set up by double layers (I think Alfven had a theory for this)

Hi Zeuzz, which compact objects are you reffering too. I take it neutron stars, what about the massive object that appears to be at the center of our galaxy?

Even for an alternative to neutron stars, how does it maintain as a plasma, I feel , it might still have to undergo gravitational collapse. The point to ther possibility of neutron stars is again the mass density ratio. After a certain point, I would be curious how it stays palsma and doesn't collapse to neutrons?

 

[Dancing David]

Lets first have a look at the formation of the bright ring around the Terrella on the picture on the left that I posted above.

Birkeland had this to say about it: http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae



Considering the filamentation seen around the edges, the coronal polar hole, the similar magnetic fields used, the thinner texture filaments at the poles, can you say that the phenomeon being simulated on Birkelands Terrella does bear a strong resemblence to the corona around the sun? Bearing in mind that this is exactly what Terrella's are designed to do, emulate the EM field of bodies in space.

I don't know, i am a concrete thinker, so to me it looks like a metallic sphere, that is why i asked what you think the experiement is scalable to.

So what are you suggesting, that somehow it represents the corona around the sun? I ask because I don't find it similar. (I am very concrete, I see patterns but not abstracted ones, i even have difficulty with many subtle things like humor.)
So you listed
-filamentation
-coronal polar hole
-magnetic fields
-thinner texture to filaments at the poles

And you think that these phenomena scale to coronal evets sround the sun?

I am not tryuing to be stupid, my brian works differently than yours , I can get literary allusions like the stuff in Moby Dick (I don't think Starbuck is weak, i think he is honorably stupid)and other stories but when it comes to a metal ball in a box , that is what i see, a metal sphere in a box. (Seriously, I often have to ask my wife why everybody else is laughing in the movie theater.)

So we can point to things in the process of the sun and they will scale to the things in Birkelands box, cool!

What charge did he put on the sphere?

 

[Dancing David]

Zeuzzz: I have many questions about Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (cosmic plasma filaments + enormous Birkeland currents + a ball of plasma result in plasmoids that look like galaxies). The main one is:

Why does he compare the results of his computer simulation which are plasma density graphs to optical photographs of galaxies?

Optical photographs of galaxies show their apparent shape. Galaxies are actually disk shaped. Spiral galaxies have spiral arms in photographs because these are regions of star formation (lots of young, bright stars). There are a couple of theories (not mutually exclusive) for this -the density waves model and the shock waves model.
The density of matter does not drop to very low values between the arms as suggested by Peratt's plasma density graphs and the plasmoid experiments that he bases his simulation on.

Others are

• Why don't we see this happening?
• Are cosmic plasma filaments associated with galaxies? There are images of cosmic plasma filaments (not to be confused with the cosmological filaments of galaxies) that have structures in them that look like the result of Birkeland currents. But I have not seen any evidence of associated galaxies.

Thanks, I had been wondering about that as well, since the 'shape' of a galaxy is determined by the events that you mentioned. IE Star formation and concentration of material.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am saying that that is an erroneus position to take from the beginning as there can be no flow of current at any single point or line.

This is a ridiculous position to take. If the current density at a point is nonzero, the current is said to be nonzero. That is standard, ESPECIALLY if you're dealing with systems (like plasmas) where the spatial extent of the current is important and current densities are not infinite.

I think we are picking semantics here.

No, we are not. You are, in an attempt to salvage a mistake. Your strategy, if defending the paper is your objective, should be to downplay the significance of the mistake. Trying to say it's not a mistake simply makes you look clueless.

I'm sure that someone as experienced in electrical engineering as himself is aware that there is no current at a neutral point, but this will increase from zero as you travel outwards.

If you take the view that current is zero because current density is finite, then the current is zero at any point. So you're still not making any sense.

So you could say that the electrical current right next to a neutral point is 'negligable', or you could say that none exists.

Yes, you could say that. But you'd be wrong.

Ziggurat, if a charge were to move across a neutral line, do you agree that the line is no longer neutral and has to change shape to account for this?

Not necessarily. Depends on what other charges are doing. And charges moving along the neutral line will not affect it at all, which is what the wire example shows.

 

[sol invictus]

I see nothing wrong with that paragraph. And neither did the IEEE journal of plasma physics or their peers.

Except that it's false, as anyone that knows Maxwell's equations can see.

Incidentally, the reconnecting field we have been discussing for the last few pages is another explicit counterexample to the false statement in that paragraph. For a not equal b, there is a constant current density (flowing in the z direction) everywhere in the xy plane, and yet the B field is zero at x=y=0.

 

[Dancing David]

Except that it's false, as anyone that knows Maxwell's equations can see.

Incidentally, the reconnecting field we have been discussing for the last few pages is another explicit counterexample to the false statement in that paragraph. For a not equal b, there is a constant current density (flowing in the z direction) everywhere in the xy plane, and yet the B field is zero at x=y=0.

Oh, you and your silly equations!

 

[Dancing David]

From here
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/galaxy.Peculiar.html

Something attributted to Perrat

The physical evolution of two gaussian-tapered (center to edge), 10 kpc thick, 35 kpc diameter, plasma 'disks' initually spaced 80 kpc apart. Each disk is driven by continuous gigaampere Birkeland currents meant to extend many hundreds of megaparsecs into and wrapping around the universe.

So would there not be some evidence of those kinds of currents and fields?

 

[The Man]

I thought that the argument was that there can be no current at a neutral point/line?

No, it is that this statement is wrong in both of its claims of no current “near” and no current “at”, not just one.

"Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point. If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral."

Current is defined as the amount of charge passing through a given surface area in a given amount of time. If that charge passes through a given point of that surface area then there is indeed a current through and at that point. Do not forget that the Electron, is considered to be a point charge with no spatial extension (as far as all experimentation has determined) so it could in fact pass through only a single point or one dimensional line

I am saying that that is an erroneus position to take from the beginning as there can be no flow of current at any single point or line.

Then you must know something about the electron that no one else does.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Except that it's false, as anyone that knows Maxwell's equations can see.

I would dispute that, everyone who knows maxwells equations knows that in practise a neutral point that has a current flowing over it will no longer remain a neutral point, the flow of charge has to be creating magnetic field which would alter the position of the neutral point as each charge passes by it, effecting the topology of the magnetic field.

In your ideal situation the current that you can add in the z axis direction has to be uniform, and when you actually consider the nature of the individual ions that form the current it clearly is not uniform. Also for your situation to work the current has to either extend infinitely (not possible in practise), or else has to be perfectly symetrical about the Z axis to maintain the magnetic equilibrium.

Incidentally, the reconnecting field we have been discussing for the last few pages is another explicit counterexample to the false statement in that paragraph. For a not equal b, there is a constant current density (flowing in the z direction) everywhere in the xy plane, and yet the B field is zero at x=y=0.

You still think that the field you posted back then is an example of magnetic reconnection?

Since you have been completely unable to explain how the energy is liberated from this system, it is quite obviously not magnetic reconnection, or you would have posted an explanation for how this occurs by now.

Lets have a look at some of your hand waving;

We've linked to several sophisticated and modern numerical simulations in which Maxwell's equations in plasma were solved, and when the solution is plotted you see that reconnection occurs and lots of energy is released.

We've linked to many papers in which experimenters have measured the magnetic fields in real plasmas, and then plotted the results of their measurements, and again one sees that reconnection occurs in the same way and lots of energy is released.

Just saying reconnection happens, then lots of energy is released, is not an explanation! Just explain how the lines reconnecting create the observed energy.

This is a simulation of Maxwell's equations in plasma. It shows reconnection occurring and lots of energy being released. What do you think of that?

I think thats not an explanation for the production of energy. If what you are claiming is magnetic reconnection then i should beable to produce magnetic reconnection with a simple configuration of electromagnets. I'm sure that the guys at MRX at Princeton wont be happy when they find they needn't have spent all that money on the machine to attempt to achieve magnetic reconnection.

This movie of a simulation shows quite clearly how reconnection happens, and you can see for yourself the mechanism by which so much energy is released

No, i can see what appears to be magnetic field lines themselves releasing energy. Just explain how the energy is created.

This just looks like magnetic field lines themsleves creating the energy, and is not an explanation

When that happens one of the tangles has been undone, the energy density decreases, and lots of energy gets released.

That's all there is to it.

hmmm...

That means the field lines aren't quite totally stuck, and if two come very close together and there's a lot of energy built up they can merge and reconnect (just as in the example I gave)

How can magnetic field lines merging release energy? I dont see any exploding fridge magnets.

No, Zeuzzz, you simply don't know the meaning of the terms you use. Reconnection is the phenomenon where two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected, or the other way around. That's why it's called re-connection.

Okay we're getting somewhere here. Given the properties of the vector field that the field lines are describing, explain why two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected; in terms of the vectors that the lines are describing.

 

[iantresman]

They state:
"Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point. If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral."

This is trivially falsified by one of the most basic magnetic configurations any first-year physics student studies: uniform current density in a circular wire. The center of the wire has nonzero current but zero magnetic field - it is a neutral point with electric current.

.
I don't think it's being said that "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" PERIOD, under any circumstances.

I read it as, "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" because if there was an electric current, "the point would no longer be magnetically neutral".

 

[Ziggurat]

I would dispute that, everyone who knows maxwells equations knows that in practise a neutral point that has a current flowing over it will no longer remain a neutral point,

I'm afraid this only demonstrates that you are not a member of the group who knows maxwells equations. The center of a uniform current flow is a neutral point. Hell, even a non-uniform but contiguous current flow is guaranteed to have a neutral point somewhere within it. Change the magnitude of that current, and you don't change the neutral point at all.

the flow of charge has to be creating magnetic field which would alter the position of the neutral point

Not unless the current flow was asymmetric with respect to that neutral point. In the example I gave before, changing the prefactors from a=b is CAUSED by creating a current through the ENTIRE area of interest. It does not shift the neutral point, though it does change the field around the neutral point.

In your ideal situation the current that you can add in the z axis direction has to be uniform,

Actually, no, it doesn't. It's just simpler if it's uniform. All it needs to be to not shift the neutral point is symmetric about that neutral point. But again, it STILL doesn't matter, because even if the neutral point shifts, it can STILL be within the current. So you're inventing claims to defend which were never made, and ignoring the claim that was made.

and when you actually consider the nature of the individual ions that form the current it clearly is not uniform.

You're getting pathetically desperate here. First you claim that the current is zero since the current density is not infinite. Now you claim that we have to consider individual charge carriers. No, we don't. We're taking a continuum limit, because that approximation makes sense for large systems, it works, and the alternative is too difficult for anyone to calculate. The paper in question was working in the continuum limit as well, in case you didn't notice.

 

[Ziggurat]

I read it as, "no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point" because if there was an electric current, "the point would no longer be magnetically neutral".

You're not getting it. Yes, that's what their claim means. But that's also exactly what my counterexample disproves. The center of a wire is magnetically neutral if there is no current. Turn the current on, and it remains magnetically neutral. Change the current, and it still remains magnetically neutral. Or take the magnetic reconnection field I posted before: when a=b, there's no current flow. When a!=b, there is a current flow through the entire area of interest, including at the origin. The neutral point remains. The existence of a neutral point does NOT indicate that there is no current flowing at or near that point. The author is simply wrong. Your reading of the meaning of the author's statement is correct, but you still haven't understood why that statement is wrong.

 

[iantresman]

Could someone confirm whether:

1. a broken field line is consistent with, or violates Gauss's law?

2. a broken field line is the same as an open field line?

3. reconnection involves breaking any field lines.

 

[The Man]

I would dispute that, everyone who knows maxwells equations knows that in practise a neutral point that has a current flowing over it will no longer remain a neutral point, the flow of charge has to be creating magnetic field which would alter the position of the neutral point as each charge passes by it, effecting the magnetic field.

Please demonstrate this knowledge of Maxwell’s equations by calculating where the neutral point would be for some configuration of current flows and why the addition of a current flow at that point must “alter the position of the neutral point” but that altered position can not be anywhere a current is flowing.

In your ideal situation the current that you can add in the z axis direction has to be uniform, and when you actually consider the nature of the individual ions that form the current it clearly is not uniform. Also for your situation to work the current has to either extend infinitely (not possible in practise), or else has to be perfectly symetrical about the Z axis to maintain the magnetic equilibrium.

No, having the current uniform and extending out to infinity just makes the location of the neutral point easier to calculate. A non uniform current distribution can still produce a neutral point with current at or near that point. A current not extending to infinity again only makes the calculation more difficult and may produce multiple neutral locations based on the current configuration. Since the ions in that current typically have the same charge and mass they would tend to be distributed in a uniform fashion due to their mutual repulsion. So why is the current clearly not uniform?

Okay we're getting somewhere here. Given the properties of the vector field that the field lines are describing,

It is direction and magnitude that are the properties of the vector field that the field lines represent.

explain why two points which were not connected by a B field line suddenly become connected; in terms of the vectors involved.

In simple terms, the orientation or direction of the field vectors at those points change from what would be generally considered opposing directions to what would be generally considered similar directions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Do you agree with this statement;

The magnetic field strength vector at any point in the plane
of the figure is the vector sum of all component fields that are
produced by all differential current segments in the vicinity. At
the neutral point (or line), the current on the right produces a
magnetic field strength vector that is vertically upward. Similarly,
the current on the left produces a magnetic field vector
that is vertically downward at that point. Therefore, these two
field strength vectors sum to zero at the center of the figure, and
the strength of the B field at such a neutral point is identically
zero.