Is this Marklund convection?

[celeste]

We have this current running across our field of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ngc2024_2mass.jpg
Therefore,according to this:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... chapter-6/
We should have the carbon deeper towards the center of the filament and the hydrogen outside(section 6.12),
and the carbon should travel more along the filament, while the hydrogen moves more around the filament(6.8)
Would'nt that explain why there is greater spread of hydrogen lines (spiraling towards and away from us) than carbon lines (carbon moving more across field of view) as seen here:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969ApJ...158L..49D ?

Just for comparison, the same article talks about two separate carbon lines that may blended in this object:
http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/gallery ... RT/w51.jpg

[celeste]

Just to head off this objection: Why are the carbon lines in fig. 1 of this article http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969ApJ...158L..49D
not centered at the central velocity of the hydrogen lines? If the filament is moving EXACTLY across the field of view, that would be the case. What we are seeing is Marklund convection for a filament with ions flowing across the field of view, and slightly away from us.

[celeste]

Am I correct that we should be able to look at the spectrum of ions in a "gas cloud" (filament), and derive the direction of current flow in that filament? We have sorting into cylindrical shells by ionization potential, and for each type of ion we have spread in redshift from motion around the filament, and relative shift in redshift for each ions velocity towards or away from us down a current filament. It seems we have enough information to at least tell current direction relative to us?

[Solar]

Well, that is actually pretty interesting. I see the correlation that you’re making but I’m a bit cautious with redshift… Nonetheless, correlating Marklund convection and CIV as conveyed here (6.12 Marklund Convection) carbon seems to exhibit around 13 km/s:

ABSTRACT

Observations of neutral hydrogen (H I) emission profiles produced by gas in the local interstellar medium are found to be characterized by four linewidth regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have widths on average of 5.2, 13, and 31 km/s, and a very broad component approximately 50 km/s wide. A striking coincidence exists between these linewidths and the magnitudes of the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space: 6 km/s for sodium and calcium; 13 km/s for carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen; 31 km/s for helium; and 51 km/s for hydrogen. The data relate to observations near neutral hydrogen structures that are filamentary. – Peratt/Verschuur: Observation of the CIV Effect in Interstellar Clouds: A speculation on the Physical Mechanism for Their Existence

Per Fig 1 of Stimulated Emission of Recombination Lines in Hi Regions C 109a is occupying that 13 km/s range.

I like your second post there also and in conjunction with it am wondering, in relation to the Peratt/Verschuur paper (taking Verschuur's approach that these so called "clouds" could be where a filament changes direction) if you think the estimated 50.9 km/s "inferred longitudinal electric field" then presents the observational geometry that induces the "cloud" motif surrounding an almost 'down the barrel' view as opposed to across the field of view?

[celeste]

Solar, I'll have to ponder and read again. Aren't they summing up over multiple directions?

[sjw40364]

So, as one nears a black hole time dilation occurs and time slows according to the theorists so that anything falling into the event horizon takes an infinite amount of time to do so. Likewise any radiation occurring from such a hypothetical event would take an infinite amount of time to escape. So whatever they are seeing cant be from a black hole as we observe no time dilation and according to them the galaxy has only existed 14 billion years, far from being an infinite amount of time. They are observing nothing more than a star similar to our sun that is active and emitting polar jets, perhaps in the planet forming phase. A star like the sun at the center of every galaxy just like our sun is.

[jjohnson]

Hi Celeste, interesting topic.

re: "...this current running across our field of view" - which current or currents do you mean? - this is a planetary nebula image, a complex phenomenon where currents run in many different directions and modes, axially and toroidally, etc. And of course, in response to sjw40364's observation, it is at the scale where the central star(s) are at the center, and unlikely a black hole. In the UE paradigm, there aren't black holes, anyway, so that's an irrelevant aspect of what you are looking into.

Marklund wrote his ideas about "chemical separation" processes in a plasma pinched region as a short little letter to the editor in Nature, back in 1979. Why it has had so little attention paid to it, until the EU unearthed it in recent years, I can't figure out. It starts out,

During the past two decades, progress in space research has forced us to abandon the earlier idea of a cosmical plasma as being a homogenous medium. Filament formation and chemical separation are two important phenomena that are often observed in cosmical plasmas and illustrate the importance of inhomogeneity.

He goes on, after describing to note how the chemical separations occur:

This E ✕ B /B² convection is a very efficient process for collecting material to form the filament. This is true, even if the process is slowed by collisions, because as long as the particles are charged they are forced to drift inwards.
If the plasma is partially ionised—as in part of the solar atmosphere and many other cosmical plasmas—a temperature gradient will cause the radial transport to be different for elements with different ionisation potentials.
The most abundant elements of a cosmical plasma can be divided into groups of roughly equal ionisation potentials as follows: element, (approximate ionisation potential): He, (24eV); H, O, N, (13eV); C, S, (11eV); Fe, Si, Mg, (8eV).

I am not sure how or why velocity of the plasma relates to separation of elements except for the ionization of a formerly un- or poorly ionized region by collision with relatively highly ionized plasma, the "critical ionization velocity", CIV brought out by Solar. It is ionized or charged material which is separated by Marklund's process, and neutral species are more subject to collisional entrainment and gravity forces, which eventually manifest more strongly as the density of the filament approaches proto-star conditions.

The other subject, detecting current direction toward or away from us, is a little ambivalent, in that charged particles will, in a magnetic field aligned current, flow (or spiral about a constant "guiding central axis") in opposite directions, electrons one way and positive charges in the other. Which way is the current? The direction of the magnetic field is generally taken to be in the direction that it influences positive charges to move. This distinction seems to me to be related, possibly, to doppler measurements as follows.

Photons are emitted at discrete "line" frequencies as electrons are attracted to a positive nucleus (electron shell space available) and in their fall to a lower energy state, emit the photon. Looking at a false-color doppler image that relates a color to velocity toward or away from the observer (red = away; blue = toward, conventionally) then we are "seeing" the directions, relative to us, of the positive particles, of ions or protons (occasionally positrons). You could say that which way they are moving is the direction of the current.

Other methods can be invoked to determine the strength of the currents (Faraday rotation of the polarized, emitted light waves yields the magnetic field strength and consequently the current associated with it - read Kronberg's paper, Measurement of the Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet, for insight into the interesting process of making those measurements and conclusions.) While he was studying a very large, collimated jet thousands of parsecs in length, ostensibly "powered" by a black hole (he has to write those words in order to get his electric current to pass the peer review, which it did), there isn't any reason that electric current flows in planetary nebulae and filamentary star-forming regions might also be measured. It seems to be a lucid, plausible process if you have enough information from which to take the measurements. Actual distance to the emitting object(s) may be the most error-inducing part of this process. Beyond about 500 pc, astronomers rely on "standard candles" as the best available distance estimators, which are still being argued over as to their reliability as well as accuracy.

Jim

[celeste]

Jim,
"It is ionized or charged material which is separated by Marklund's process, and neutral species are more subject to collisional entrainment and gravity forces, which eventually manifest more strongly as the density of the filament approaches proto-star conditions." That is what I thought too. But from Peratt himself, "In the classical Marklund picture,the production and diffusion of neutral gas is outwards from the plasma filament." http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/Per.Ver.TPS00.pdf
I should have realized this myself. If ions spiral AROUND current filaments, then recombination to neutral atoms leaves us with neutrals "diffusing" outwards radially from the filament. Nowhere is this more clear than with star formation. Neutral matter does NOT funnel in to a star near z-pinch, and that is WHY stars are so charged. As ions spiral faster around a filament, it means neutral matter created by recombination will be throw off with even greater velocity. The mainstream has the theory that accretion disks funnel neutral matter onto a star, and that a star firing up "blows off" the surrounding gas cloud. Well, their observations are kind of right, but the mechanism is wrong. Disks of neutral matter don't accrete onto stars by gravity,they are thrown off. As ions and electrons spiral in faster to form a star (say near z-pinch), we have more recombination and greater ejection velocity of neutral gas. I should go back and look at that thread about gas clouds seen rapidly disappearing from around quasars, the mechanism may be the same.
See the g-cloud thread on the IBEX ribbon too. Even if I'm wrong on the mechanism, we are left with a ribbon of neutral matter emission across the sky, WHATEVER the mechanism there, it should give us a clue here too.

[celeste]

Jim, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see a main current running across this picture (and slightly down to the right), with neutral gas ejected perpendicularly near z-pinch. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap100112.html
Same nebula in visible, where we can't see through neutral gas,dust: http://www.sidleach.com/ngc2024.htm
I don't see how you could have electrons and ions flowing in opposite directions along some filament, constrain that filament with ions and electrons spiraling inwards, and NOT have huge a huge generation of neutral matter which would fly off radially from the filament.

[celeste]

Now I get comets. I guess I should put that in the "colinear planetary system" thread

[puppy]

Hey all, I got interested in learning about what exactly marklund convection is. I looked up the original paper and it seems to make sense. However, when I look up to see if there are any papers regarding laboratory experiments on the process I don't see any? All I see are papers regarding how Marklund Convection is apparently happening in space, which is nice, but these are only inferences from astronomical images and they aren't direct measurements.

Here's a link to the "google" search.
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?start= ... as_sdt=0,5

Does anyone know of any earth based lab experiments on marklund convection? Maybe for some impractical element separation method? Perhaps marklund convection is a term used in astrophysics and all the lab experiments call it something else?

[nick c]

hi puppy,
Marklund convection is a plasma process in filamentary currents of sorting material according to chemical composition.
Here is a link to the abstract for the original article by G.T. Marklund:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v2 ... 370b0.html
from the abstract:

The general principles of this mechanism are described here.

Maybe the answer to your question is in the article.
Or perhaps it is in here in Hannes Alfven's Cosmic Plasmas:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Cosmic_Plasma_%28Book%29

[601L1n9FR09]

Howdy,
So far all I can find is a brief mention of observations from the plasma laboratory.

http://phys.org/news/2012-01-stellar-embryos.html

HannesAlfven Jan 23, 2012 Rank: 1.2 / 5 (6) There is a little-known process from the plasma laboratory called Marklund convection which can also explain these observations. But, don't expect theorists anytime soon to question their assumptions about magnetohydrodynamics. It has for many decades now been in vogue to pretend that cosmic plasmas behave essentially as gases. Magnetic reconnection experiments all have an ON/OFF switch. Plasma's VI curve demonstrates that the resistance *never* hits zero. Thus, E-fields *are* possible in space. Willful ignorance of competing inferences comes with a heavy price: Genius in science does not occur in the absence of ideational fluency. Genius is also a function of a person's *breadth* of knowledge. Thus, every scientist today must make a choice: Investigate unconventional inferences and have a chance at discovering something new, or focus only upon the "acceptable" inferences, and remain a scientific pundit. Most seem to be choosing pundit these days. report

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-01-stellar-embryos.html#jCp

Nothing specific, or references cited, but who ever posted it seems persuaded such observations exist.
Also seems some one here might know or even be the person posting it. There is hope then?
What would it take to conduct such experiments in a lab?

JD

[puppy]

nick c, ya, that's the marklund paper I am referring to. And 601L1n9FR09, its a relief to know I'm not the only one having trouble finding citations for laboratory experiments. If marklund convection is so wonderful, why aren't citations for lab experiments easy to find instead of obscure? Personally, if I were to write a paper on this stuff, it would go something like

"the world is a terrible, evil place with nothing but hopelessness and despair. Yet, thanks to my experiment there is hope...yada yada yada.....something about marklund convection theory and its wondrous applications to astrophysics.....now, in case you fail to believe me, too bad, because I have SHOWN marklund convection is physically possible with a lab experiment."

maybe the lab experiments are difficult to preform?

[jjohnson]

Well on the first try on Google, this commentary by Fälthammar popped right up. PDF format of a Swedish publication, in English. It's full of relevant plasma phenomena, with a good description of each as he interprets it from his background in plasma research.

About the outward difffusion of neutralized ions from a filamentary plasma structure, that's not gravity that causes that; that is inertia. The charged particles come together, neutralizing into an atom or a molecule (or a grain of neutral dust or grit, for that matter) which then is instantly released from the magnetic force that acts centripetally on only the charged particles. This force curves their trajectories to be circular (or helical) with a radius that is proportional to the particle mass and entry velocity, and inversely proportional to the strength of the magnetic field and the charge of the particle.
Immediately upon neutralization, the directional-changing force exerted upon the formerly charged particle ceases, just like suddenly straightening out the front wheels of your car. Newton's Law states that the particle should then continue on in a straight line unless or until acted upon by another force - i.e., gravity, which causes a curved or ballistic path influence on particles with "mass", and collisions, which cause abrupt direction or scalar speed changes in which, as usual, momentum is conserved. Collisions, if they exceed critical ionization velocity, or other ionizing influences could re-ionize some neutral particles, and the magnetic helical or circular trajectory dance would begin anew.

Jim