Magnetic Fields and Electro-Gravity at UniverseToday.com

[Ultra Vires]

Comparing an imagined magnetic field strength in intergalactic space to the field strength of the Sun, as if that could mean something, is a further dead giveaway.

I never compared this, I just stated it!
All I'm saying this is field strengths are wildly different.

[Ultra Vires]

Ultra Vires, in terms of numbers, what is the gravitational field strength in intergalactic space? So small that gravity should be neglected as well?

A gravity field is easily measured by the mass of matter/object(s) in intergalactic space. It is dependant on the density and the gravitational constant G. It is well established. Gravity is cumulative, tending to attract matter / objects to one another. No doubt the local attraction is minimal, but when cumulative it can derive the future of the universe observed expansion.

Energy in terms of gravitational potential energy is 1052 Joules in the average galaxy. For magnetic fields, this energy is equal to about 1049 Joules in an average galaxy. In intergalactic space, it is be much much smaller.

The important question is how much does is the intergalactic medium effected by gravity AND how much by electromagnetism. I.e. Determining the energy 'U'. In mean magnetic field strength is;
Um=V/H2 / 8. pi

Where, if the average number of electrons per unit volume; as H = uniform magnetic field strength in volume V, and Um is the resultant field strength.

(To observe the strength of the field, the observed range of frequency 'v', is calculated by the assumed contributed by synchrotron radiation emission, where v = K . H . y2; where K=constant and y =energy of the particles in MeV )

Which one dominates, and hence, which one effects structure. I.e. It is a combination of both, actually.

If, say, the value of the intergalactic medium were to average <10-16G, then gravity easily predominates.

What is Um in EU/PC?

====
Not answering this properly means the influence of these fields cannot dominate; as EU/PC, I believe, infers.

[Ultra Vires]

To support my arguement. The intergalactic medium is what field strength?

1. Warren Essey, Shin'ichiro Ando, Alexander Kusenko; "Determination of intergalactic magnetic fields from gamma ray data" (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.5313;
They give the range of field strength of the IGM as 0.01 fG < B < 30 fG. I.e. 10-17G to 10-14G

2. CERN Courier http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/42711 says in article; "Fermi limits the intergalactic magnetic field" (7th June 2000), where;
"The non-detection by Fermi sets a lower limit of the order of 10–19 T on the magnetic field strength in intergalactic space, which is consistent with a cosmological origin of the field." I.e. 10-16G
They interestingly also conclude; "The idea is that the accretion of matter within stars and galaxies amplifies a preexisting magnetic field that permeates the universe and would have been produced soon after the Big Bang. The alternative "bottom-up" scenario, where the magnetic fields are first produced in stars and then propagate outwards to galaxies and eventually intergalactic space, is disfavoured."

3. Kiyotomo Ichiki, Susumu Inoue, Keitaro Takahashi "Probing the Nature of the Weakest Intergalactic Magnetic Fields with the High Energy Emission of Gamma-Ray Bursts" See http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1589
They determine the field strength as 10-18G

4. Kronberg, Philipp P.; Lesch, Harald; Hopp, Ulrich; "Magnetization of the Intergalactic Medium by Primeval Galaxies"; AJ., 511, 56 (1998) See http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...511…56K [cited 89 times!]
They determine in the early universe the upper limit of the IGM field strength as 10-9G

5. Arnon Dar, A. De Rujula "The Magnetic Field in Galaxies, Galaxy Clusters, and the InterGalactic Space" http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0504480 (2005) predicts for inter clusters 50 nG.

This is close to what I've already said, I think.

Q. EU/PC predicts what for the intergalactic medium?

Thanks.

[davesmith_au]

Ultra Vires I don't have much time for your kind of queries, but taking a passage from one of your references:

... 2. CERN Courier ... "The idea is that the accretion of matter within stars and galaxies amplifies a preexisting magnetic field that permeates the universe and would have been produced soon after the Big Bang. ... "

What, prey tell, created the "preexisting magnetic field" and what kept it 'alive'? In the absence of electric currents, magnetic fields don't exist. And, um, what Big Bang?

Cheers, Dave.

[Sparky]

@anybody
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1589

We find crucial differences between the cases of coherent and tangled magnetic fields, as well as dependences on the field coherence length.

"Tangled" fields? I assume that means interacting fields such as found on the sun or magnetically confined high energy plasma. What would maintain "tangled" fields in space.?

"dependences on the field coherence length" ? Are we disconnecting field lines again? Does this mean that data from the uniform field is "crucial" for arriving at the conclusion they are looking for.?

They start off with assumptions, speculate on the effects of those, and play with data from equipment, built and aimed at finding what will support their assumptions and speculations.

They don't know what they are looking at. And others, trained in the same fantasies, supporting them, does not prove anything.

This is not science, it is propping up delusions with magic.

[David Talbott]

Ultra Vires, your analysis is so far from any understanding of the electric universe I have to ask you to stop before those whom I respect the most start throwing rocks at me.

Your gross calculations are utterly nonsensical, and worse than that I think you know it. Start with the obvious: you don't have any idea what the electric potential is in intergalactic space, and neither do we. A magnetic field does not tell you the electric potential. What we CAN do is point to concrete empirical evidence that the universal potential is unfathomably high. The evidence is in the focused effects, not in mathematical contrivances derived from unknowns. Would you really want to defend the idea that highest energy jets from galaxies are being accelerated to nearly the speed of light by gravitational attraction INSIDE the galaxy.

It's just too transparent that you've pulled some figures out of a high school textbook, in the hopes of buffaloing newcomers here.

Looking back over your contribution, I can't see any reason for you continuing this way. Where is the rationality in this brief exchange:

Comparing an imagined magnetic field strength in intergalactic space to the field strength of the Sun, as if that could mean something, is a further dead giveaway.

I never compared this, I just stated it!
All I'm saying this is field strengths are wildly different.

Yes, you made a meaningless comparison, then you repeated it. Of course the two are WILDLY DIFFERENT, as are the volumes of space involved, plus the fact that, in terms of magnetic fields, a focal point of pinched plasma is the farthest thing from any meaningful comparison to the vast and diffuse plasma environment from which that focus receives its energy.

[David Talbott]

How much time should we be taking up in argument with zealots and Inquisitors?

Perhaps this is as good a place as any to drop in this comment.

The past few weeks, as we looked ahead to a debate on the electric sun, have been instructive in ways I hadn't anticipated. It's embarrassing to look back over the posting frenzy by Nereid and realize how much pointless, obscure, and factually ridiculous material we let through. It seems I was too busy to absorb Dave Smith's periodic signals to me on the matter.

Then I got a note from Don Scott about "Nereid's pathological mental processes." Don directed me to a Nereid comment on the issue of neutrinos "changing flavors" in transit from the Sun, supposedly closing the famous neutrino gap. Don had said, in his response to Tom Bridgman, "There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel." Elsewhere, Don had used the example of a passenger getting off a train. If the only information you have is what you see—the passenger getting off the train—there is no logical basis for assuming that a different person got on the train before metamorphosing into the person you saw get off.

You'd think we'd not have to waste time arguing about this point. But not so.

Nereid responded by suggesting that PHOTONS contradict Don's statement. "If, as Scott states, this is a simple and obvious fact, what can be learned by studying light from the sky?"
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... t=0#p52103

Okay, Don was not impressed:

What I said was a fact: “Nothing can be discovered about changes that possibly occur within a communications channel only by observing what comes out of it (and not what goes into it).” Nereid says this is the logical equivalent of saying, “Nothing can be discovered by looking at what comes out the end of a communications channel.”
There are two possible conclusions:
She actually believes this is a falsification of my point.
She thinks her audience is so stupid that we will be impressed with her idiotic statement.

(For the record, I did ask Don for permission to cite his private comment.)

Reflections on the comedy of it all

Well now, it's got me thinking. Is it possible that Don was not correct?

Le't say that Tim Thompson, once the most revered Inquisitor on the Internet—a man who's never known a conventional theory he didn't like—boards a train from Los Angeles to Thunderbolts City. But at Thunderbolts City, Tim Thompson never gets off the train, though we do observe Nereid, who's more recently emerged as the most revered Inquisitor on the Internet, getting off the train to tutor the unwashed at Thunderbolts City. Hmmmm.

Or let's say that Tom Bridgman, wearing the smile of a clown, boards a train to Thunderbolts City. But the only person who gets off the train is someone calling himself "Physicist" (Middle name: Pretentiousness), arriving with beaming countenance to tutor the unwashed at Thunderbolts City. But first a congratulation to Nereid for the "breath of sanity" she brought to Thunderbolts City. After wearing out his welcome, he's given a return ticket. But the train's course is a loop. And it isn't long before another fellow arrives with beaming countenance to tutor the unwashed at Thunderbolts City, identifying himself as "PlasmaGuy" (middle name: Pretentiousness Squared). But first, a congratulation to Nereid for her patience in tutoring the unwashed crowd gathered there. He doesn't stay long because his pretense (Did you get that from his name?) was too quickly exposed. He loves calculations but knows nothing about plasma, electricity, glow discharge, or plasma instabilities.

Well that's the way it goes. Don Scott's original statement needs no defense, but when it comes to avatars, the metamorphosis of zealots and Inquisitors on their way to Thunderbolts City is just business as usual.

[Siggy_G]

(...) Don Scott's original statement needs no defense, but when it comes to avatars, the metamorphosis of zealot and Inquisitors on their way to Thunderbolts City is just business as usual.

Enjoyed the metaphors

It has struck me more than once that the amount of [real life] persons out there refuting PC/EU isn't neccesarily numerous at all, and some of them certainly have several online avatars (if you think about it, Nereid made a point about this exact subject in another thread). I sometimes recognize them, also quite recently, but I usually give them the benefit of doubt and continue discussing as usual, because the points brought up CAN be intriguing. (I guess this is also what Dave Smith and David Talbot have done as well). However, just as often it ends up as a chaotic debate based on opponents' misconceptions of what Plasma Cosmology or Electric Universe actually is, consensus chants, display of exact numbers derived from uncertain assumptions, contrasted comedy and so on.

The next logical question is, why doesn't certain people want to be recognized, especially if they have credentials/background that gives them some weight? Could it be because a chosen few want to give the impression of being numerous people representing, say, the astrophysical community? The same goes for a few self-nominated within the Wikipedia system, that pretensiously represents "all scientists out there"... Something's fishy and pear shaped about the statistic or democratic nature of what is being portrayed.

[Ultra Vires]

"Start with the obvious: you don't have any idea what the electric potential is in intergalactic space, and neither do we."

Not knowing is OK, I suppose. It should be a simple question.
I'll have to look elsewhere as EU/PC if can't answer it.

[Ultra Vires]

I think you've all missed the point here. Astrophysics is currently wanting to investigate the intergalactic magnetic fields, which it hopes to do in the near future. I.e. The Square Kilometre Array (SKA) I am discussing it here because the story quantauniverse said his piece was on this very subject, and whose response was also fairly obscure.

Most of my questions mostly stem from the paper; "Cosmic Magnetic Fields: Observations and Prospects" by the highly respected Rainer Beck (http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3749).

This has many predictions of hypothesis regarding large-scale magnetic fields. Agree with it or not, but I don't understand where this is wrong nor what EU/C predicts. In this regards, what I believe or not is irrelevant, this is the direction of mainstream new investigations into large scale magnetic fields.

[Goldminer]

It is well known that most large scale magnetic fields are produced by heat proof chunks of alnico-neodymium material.

[Goldminer]

Maybe there are these (link) floating around out there!

Seriously, a large magnetic field distributed in space requires electric current, strength proportional to wattage.
Go figure!

[PersianPaladin]

I thought pixies and fairies generate galactic/inter-galactic magnetic fields?

[David Talbott]

I think you've all missed the point here. Astrophysics is currently wanting to investigate the intergalactic magnetic fields, which it hopes to do in the near future.

The issue we were discussing was whether the electric potential in intergalactic space is known. Anyone investigating the "magnetic universe," who would tell you that the electric potential of intergalactic space is known would be lying. Just a few years ago, the standard model held that no electric potential exists across cosmic distances. Plasma cosmology and electric universe proponents, from the beginning, have held that electric potential is the reason for the signature of magnetism across the cosmos. Who was correct?

If you look at the innumerable dead end paths in the theoretical sciences today, one overarching mistake stands out: the eagerness to lead the way with mathematics, to quantify the UNKNOWN, then disregard all of the evidence that contradicts the model. How could anyone deny that this is exactly what happened in 20th century cosmology?

If you are looking for observational predictions that follow logically and necessarily from the tenets of the Electric Universe, you'll find dozens inherent in the EU literature, but not wild guesses giving numerical values to unknowns. See if you can find anyone in the sciences who's been more successful in predicting discoveries that challenge mainstream dogma than Wal Thornhill. That's how you determine the profitable directions of scientific investigation, not by fabricating mathematical illusions, or making wild guesses at unknowns. My suggestion to you is that you start at a common sense level, asking what you would look for if the magnetic universe is nothing else than the electric universe (the only rational conclusion unless one assumes the impossible—thinking that rarefied plasma can sustain magnetic fields without electric currents).

[jjohnson]

Thanks for the reference to the recent arXiv paper by Rainer Beck. I find his work exceedingly interesting, and this one is no different. One section is relevant here: The Intergalactic Magnetic Field, introducing which subject he writes:

Magnetic fields in the intergalactic medium (IGM) are of fundamental importance for cosmology [146]. Their role as the likely seed field for galaxies and clusters and their possible relation to structure formation in the early Universe place considerable importance on its discovery. Various generation mechanisms have been suggested. The field could be produced via the Weibel instability at structure formation shocks [97].

One can learn a lot from Beck — not only the methodologies in use to detect and quantify magnetic fields at large distances, but some of his own views and discssions on their importance, plus a peek at the future using new radio telescope arrays, such as the Square Kilometre Array.
Beck has also collaborated with another outstanding radio astronomer at the University of Sydney, Brian Gaensler. See his references in the above paper for that.

Gravitational potential energy is an interesting subject, too, especially out in the intergalactic parts of the map. Ian Sefton notes that if you lift a brick in Earth's gravity field, you do not increase the brick's potential energy; you increase the potential energy of the system that consists of the Earth and the brick.

PE is not stored in either Earth or the brick nor is it possible to apportion the PE between the two interacting objects. The first step to enlightenment is to learn not to think of gravitational or electrical PR of electrons (or of any kind of particle) and think instead of energy as a property of the whole system.

This makes the conceptualization or modeling of the gravitational as well as magnetic or electromagnetic potential energy out in a fairly remote region of space among the galaxies a very difficult exercise in taking all the interacting objects into account. Summing all the vectors, in other words.

Here is a simple example: What is the gravitational attraction (the net direction and amount of acceleration in gees (Earth gravities) at some point between the Sun and its nearest neighbor (which would be the center of gravity or barycenter of the binary pair Alpha Centauri A and B). Assume that the Sun and Alpha Cen have no relative motion, for simplicity. If you take a test mass, a 1 kg sphere, say, and release it with no relative motion to either star system, on the straight line between the two systems at the point where each pulls the mass with the same force toward its own center, the mass will be in a zero-g or nano-g condition and acceleration will be nil. If the test mass were the Sun itself, the acceleration on the Sun due to Alpha Cen is only about 1.5 x 10^-14 gee.

If the 1 kg test mass is released in similar fashion someplace else, it will feel a net acceleration. The imaginary field of gravity acceleration vectors between two star systems varies smoothly everywhere in space around those two. The revolution of the binary pair about its barycenter adds a further complication - dynamics - to the gravity vectors. Add in all the other stars and bodies in the galaxy, each of which exerts a finite, if small, force on the test mass, and the situation, while "real", becomes mathematically intractable. Even "numerical methods" to solve an n-body problem won't be much help, and certain simplifications have to be applied. "Ignore all vectors coming from things on the "other half" of the galaxy". " Ignore masses less than 1 Jupiter mass." Once upon the simplification road, the mathematician is on a bifurcated manifold branch, the non-reality side.

So it is difficult, at the very least, to define how much energy from this or that set of attractions or repulsions exists at random points in intergalactic space. That Beck and Gaensler and others have learned how to infer the strengths of galactic fields from Faraday rotation and line-splitting and other sophistries is quite amazing. And as important as the magnetic fields in IG space may be according to Beck's studies, the really important stuff is where the electrodynamics and complex, chaotic trajectories of plasma physics conspire to increase the fields, drawing in ionized matter in great electromagnetic Bennett pinches which increase the mass density along with the charged particle density and the overall combined field densities in ways to form stars and galaxies, at the nodes of the thin wispy soup of filaments of partially ionized matter and charged dusty grains lurking between the stars and galaxies.