So Hot You're Cool, So Cool You're Hot

[Anaconda]

This TPOD brings up issues that seem to strike right at the heart of "modern" astronomy.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... oolhot.htm

So-called "modern" astronomy relies on gravity to generate temperatures, but on closer inspection the temperatures are on the chilly side: "The gas and dust has a temperature only 23 degrees above absolute zero (23K)." (If temperature is even a meaningful term, I agree with the TPOD conclusion: Temperature is a misleading term at best, and has no meaning in the context at worst.)

The right answer, as stated by the TPOD: "Synchrotron radiation gives no indication of temperature." Rather, synchrotron radiation is evidence of ordered movement of electrons (electric current) that is in a sense, the exact opposite of "random" movement, unless you happen to be standing in the way of a "freight train" of ordered electrons (ions), then your "matter" might start acting pretty randomly (think about being in a big microwave oven).

The question seems to be how does gravity generate heat in an environment that has only a tenuous amount of matter to begin with. There just doesn't seem to be enough matter to cause friction. We know that electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity and while gravity and electromagnetism both effect matter, in a tenuous and frigid environment any heat would be quickly dissipated. On the other hand, electromagnetism by its very nature is self-organizing and resists dissipation.

Now, many of "modern" astronomy's proponents claim that low temperatures would collapse plasma (ionized matter) into neutral matter, but how do they know that? It seems there is "something about plasma in space" that prevents wholesale neutrality.

What is that "something"?

To identify and explain the characteristic of plasma that maintains charge seperation in space regardless of the apparent temperature (energy level) or lack thereof, would go a long way to demonstrating frictional heating due to gravity is not the energizing dynamic of space, but rather, the self-organizing powers of electromagnetism is the predominate "motivating" force, that as Hannes Alfven, Father of Plasma Cosmology put it: "Gravity is the ashes of previous electrical systems."

Considering the laws of thermodynamics and of entropy, this makes sense: Weaker energy sources are the product of stronger energy sources because energy only runs down hill, lower order energy sources, all things being equal with no "outside energy input" can not generate higher orders of energy because they can't generate the required concentration of energy. Electromagnetism is, indeed, more complex than gravity, but is so much stronger (39 orders of magnitude) that the less complex form of energy can't generate the more complex form of energy at the macro level.

So, as stated, above, gravity depends on electromagnetism for the concentrating power that effectuates meaningful levels of gravity: Think z-pinches that cause Marklund convection. This is a known and demonstrated relationship as shown in the plasma physics laboratory. Gravity causing electromagnetism as the "yes, but" conventional astronomers are beginning to resort to as the evidence of electromagnetism in all regions of space (near-space, intermediate-space, and deep-space) becomes undeniable has never been demonstrated: Rather, it relies on a menagerie of exotic theoretical objects, that for all of "modern" astronomy's assumptions, have never been verified by observation & measurement.

[Lloyd]

* I don't understand how synchrotron radiation is detected in a spectrum. I did a net search for images of such spectra, but didn't find anything that seemed to be actual spectra.
1.
* I found this illustration, but don't understand it well. It's at http://www.shokabo.co.jp/sp_e/optical/l ... t_cont.htm
and there's a spectrum at http://www.shokabo.co.jp/sp_e/optical/labo/labo.htm , but I don't understand that either.
* The spiraling dot is said to represent an electron and the straight moving dot represents a photon, I think. The graphic shows the photon being emitted in one direction, but I assume photons are emitted perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force in all directions. They're not actually emitted in only one direction, like the graphic shows, are they?
* And the magnetic force lines aren't real, are they? Electrons aren't spiraling around any kind of actual lines, are they? And, if not, how are they constrained to spiral?
* Do some of the photons end up making a stronger line on a spectrum? Do they hit the spectrum at specifiv wavelengths or in specific patterns that identify them as having been emitted by a spiraling electron?
* One electron can't keep emitting photons, can it? Can an electron emit more than one photon? I assume the graphic is supposed to indicate that different electrons following the same paths emit different photons. Am I right?
* Here's a graph from http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l4.html.
2.
* The caption says:

Figure 7: Spectrum of the Crab [Nebula] over a very wide range of energies. The emission is dominated by synchrotron radiation, and at very high energies (10^10 to 10^12 eV) there may be an inverse-Compton component.

* Can someone explain if this graph relates at all to a spectrum? Why don't they show actual spectra?

[flyingcloud]

I got more questions than answers on this whole photon thing too.
More than happy for anyone to tell me I am wrong.

Electrons and photons and the relationship between the two.
Are all electromagnetic frequencies capable of producing photons. I say yes, particularly with infrared heat, especially with higher frequencies.


From somewhere I developed the notion that electrons will emit a photon when excited into higher states of orbit, or higher electron shells. I surmise by gaining this extra energy said electron will increase it's escape potential, destabilizing the current atomic configuration. Depending on the overall stability of said atom/molecule the electron can emit a photon (energy packet?) and resume it's more stable orbit or ion / electron

However I also have the notion that the "empty space" between subatomic particles is filled with the influence of force to the point that attraction and repulsion seek balance based on proximity (and strength of charge) therefore suggesting that the photon emmision never actually leaves the grasp of atoms molecules per se, but travels along the continuum until reaching a receptor(electron of any conversion object) ie retina/cone/rod, photosynthetic plant cell, photovalic cell, another electron where it can be absorbed and knock out and electron of a less stable atom/molecule than where it originated.

[Lloyd]

* Looks like I wasn't paying enough attention when I posted my last message. I see now that the graphic shows the same electron emitting a photon during each turn it makes in its helical motion. That's not an accurate depiction; is it? I hope someone comes along who has a few answers for us.

[Solar]

I very much enjoyed your post Anaconda. When you said:

To identify and explain the characteristic of plasma that maintains charge seperation in space regardless of the apparent temperature (energy level) or lack thereof, would go a long way to demonstrating frictional heating due to gravity is not the energizing dynamic of space, but rather, the self-organizing powers of electromagnetism is the predominate "motivating" force, that as Hannes Alfven, Father of Plasma Cosmology put it: "Gravity is the ashes of previous electrical systems."

It reminded me of Mel Acheson's:

The problem is not that of supplying the energy to ionize neutral matter. The problem is that of dissipating the energy of already ionized matter. It's the act of neutralizing existing separations of charges that provides the prodigious energy driving and shaping the universe. After seeing that the universe is already electrified, a calculation on the back of another envelope shows that gravity is too weak--by about 40 orders of magnitude!-- to account for the observed structure, movement, and dissipation of energy. It's the gravity universe that's impossible. - Charge Separation in the Mind

Lloyd: There is information regarding synchrotron radiation via Anthony Peratt's "Evidence for Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma"

And a short summary here also:

Blazar Jets and Radiative Processes

I would also note the term "Blazars" in relation to synchrotron radiation in your search efforts. As for photon emission via electrons perhaps a comparative study of "Quantum Dots" may also be helpful. Particularly the section "Bulk Semiconductors - A Fixed Range of Energies" wherein the electron energy level (after having been raised) falls back into "their natural, valence energy levels".

It appears that when the electron is stimulated (energized above it's normal energy state) it emits photons as it returns to norm. So one might conclude that photon emission can come form the electron periodically 'shedding' excess energy in relation to what would be the relative 'norm' for the environment within which the electron finds itself. So that the synchrotron emission is a class of radiative emission for electrons undergoing the same 'shedding' process in order to maintain the energy level for that environment - but, the determing factor would be the energies involved. Different energies result in different emissive qualities.

All of these regions can produce a variety of observed energy, mostly in the form of a nonthermal spectrum ranging from very low frequency radio to extremely energetic gamma rays, with a high polarization (typically a few percent) at some frequencies. The nonthermal spectrum consists of synchrotron radiation in the radio to X-ray range, and inverse Compton emission in the X-ray to gamma-ray region. A thermal spectrum peaking in the ultraviolet region and faint optical emission lines are also present in OVV quasars, but faint or non-existent in BL Lac objects. -Blazar

Any corrections greatly appreciated.

[Lloyd]

* Thanks much for the help, Ty. Maybe I'll learn something about what I was asking about.
* In the graphic above I had the impression it was illustrating just free electrons in space in magnetic fields. The energy states that electrons are capable of having seem to apply to those attached to atoms. I haven't heard if those states are possible for free electrons. Does anyone know? The electrons around atoms are said to move from one orbital to another when they emit or absorb a photon. Isn't that true? Free electrons don't have orbitals; do they?

[flyingcloud]

photons are supposedly energy packets
photons supposedly cause electrons to eject from the material within a solar panel.
when sunlight hits the substrate electrons are jetisoned from said substrate and freed from the grasp of it's host atom.

I would speculate that photons would interact differently with free electron
The atomic bond would be the physical resisitence allowing the electron to absorb the photon energy and approach escapability
whereas a free electron would just get pushed along/aside when nudged by the force of a photon

[Solar]

*
* In the graphic above I had the impression it was illustrating just free electrons in space in magnetic fields. The energy states that electrons are capable of having seem to apply to those attached to atoms. I haven't heard if those states are possible for free electrons. Does anyone know? The electrons around atoms are said to move from one orbital to another when they emit or absorb a photon. Isn't that true? Free electrons don't have orbitals; do they?

Conjecture: The graphic you've cited is a basic 'model' of an electron spiraling around a magnetic field line which emits a photon at some moment. There exist a model for the valence electrons of molecules wherein the name "free electrons" is given to the electrons composing atoms because those electrons can still 'move around' in their supposed 'orbits' etc:

....electrical conduction ( in materials testing: Measurement of electrical properties;
Electrical conductivity involves a flow or current of free electrons through a solid body. Some materials, such as metals, are good conductors of electricity; these possess free or valence electrons that do not remain permanently associated with the atoms of a solid but instead form an electron “cloud” or gas around the...

...as copper. By some external means, an electric field is established inside the wire in a direction along its length. The electrons that are free to move will gain some speed. Since they have a negative charge, they move in the direction opposite that of the electric field. The current i is defined to have a positive value in the... Britannica

"...any electron within the body of a metal crystal or fluid may be treated as freely moving" - Oxford Dictionary of Physics

But this could be confusing as relates plasma which "consists of a collection of free moving electrons and ions - atoms that have lost electrons. Energy is needed to strip electrons from atoms to make plasma." - Perspectives on Plasma

The difference, subjectively, is as Anaconda states, "ordered movement". The ordered movement of the "free" electron orbitals of an atom is "free" relative to that atomic 'structure'. Ionization, "frees" that or those electrons from that relative atomic 'structure' and now they form an ordered plasma. A "plasma cloud" in space for example.

However, as "plasma clouds" with their own double layer, those "free" electrons are then only "free" relative to the confines of that 'molecular cloud structure'. And on and on it goes hierarchally with "ordered movement" being relative to the electromagnetic 'structure' in question. So that, if you and I were in a lab and ionized some stuff, those electrons that were formerly "free" to orbit the atoms we ionized are now "free" within the confines of the Earth's magnetosphere.

To me, owing to the hierarchical nature of ubiquitous plasma, it is kind of an illusion to say that they are "free". They hierarchically move form one ordered electromagnetic 'structure' to another. We often simply don't recognize the larger hierarchical 'structure' to which they moved.

So you have to watch the "free" language in that 'scenario' such as with the opening sentence here:

A free electron model is the simplest way to represent the electronic structure of metals. Although
the free electron model is a great oversimplification of the reality, surprisingly in many cases it
works pretty well, so that it is able to describe many important properties of metals.
According to this model, the valence electrons of the constituent atoms of the crystal become
conduction electrons and travel freely throughout the crystal. Therefore, within this model we
neglect the interaction of conduction electrons with ions of the lattice and the interaction between
the conduction electrons. In this sense we are talking about a free electron gas. However, there is a
principle difference between the free electron gas and ordinary gas of molecules. - Free electron Model

LOL. How is an electron "free" as a part of a 'structure'?? - sounds like a contradiction. But, they don't have to be there permanently.

I would speculate that photons would interact differently with free electron
The atomic bond would be the physical resisitence allowing the electron to absorb the photon energy and approach escapability
whereas a free electron would just get pushed along/aside when nudged by the force of a photon

Right. Electrons looking for a home because the resonant 'structure' is 'full'. So excess electrons as "charge" will evenly "distribute" (mutual electrostatic repulsion) across the surface of a metal sphere. No 'valence vacancies' to jump into.

[flyingcloud]

AESOP can detect electrons with energies up to about 10 gigaelectron volts,

this from a new baloon probe launched
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 195147.htm

I thought any given electron had standard quantifiable charge associated with it. Can the voltage potential of any given electron vary? If so how in a 1 electron / per proton model equalize net atomic charge?

[Solar]

Electronvolts (eV) "An electron volt is a measure of energy. An electron volt is the kinetic energy gained by an electron passing through a potential difference of one volt."

Kinetic energy is the energy of motion.

"Potential Difference" is the voltage difference between location A and location B that electrons can then 'traverse'. They may traverse naturally in order to equalize. You can 'step them up', 'step them down', or accelerate them with E-fields and/or magnetic fields. You can 'kick' them along wires to see how long wires are, and/or see if the wires are longitudinally balanced, and/or see if there are impediments (resistance) to the path of their 'flow'. You can also use them to detect 'noise', and make sure the 'path' is conducive to their velocity of propagation.

"Balancing" them with protons in atoms means overall neutral.

Energies in Electron Volts

But once you start having conversations with them (*cough*) they tell you what they like despite what engineers may say. They don't like astrophysicists. Something about no respect.

I'll check on that and get back to ya.