Is this Marklund convection?

[celeste]

Jim, Yes, forgive my sloppy wording, it is obviously inertia that causes the outward drift of neutrals. One more point in that regard is that the as a neutral particle drifts outward, the effect of collisional entrainment is actually towards throwing off neutrals, rather than confining them to the filament. As the neutral particles drift outward, the azimuthal component of the current increases. Those ions are really spiraling AROUND the filament, and work to throw neutrals off radially. As far as gravity, I can't imagine that playing any significant role at all,most of all anywhere inside the filament itself (gravitational forces from the entire filament fall to zero at the filaments axis).

[Solar]

A thought:

I have a sneaking suspicion that (depending on orientation, and/or regardless of it) the ENA Ribbon may eventually be correlated with the standard model’s concept of a gravitationally induced “proto-planetary disk”.

Standard model proto-planetary disk

Now consider the (close?) relationship between the electric circuit model of Alfven with current input along the equator:

Hannes Alfven’s solar Circuit

The Sun’s electrical Environment

See, the way the traditional model blindly skirts electrical forces is to posit “ambipolar diffusion” instead of recognizing Marklund convection/CIV. The term itself is an oxymoron relating separation/organization of different charged species (ambipolar) to gas dynamics (diffusion). This way the neutrals are left to be unaffected by electromagnetic forces leaving unexplained and undemonstrated “gravitational collapse” to occur as put forth by the consensus accepted idea of nebular theory.

Why would Marklund Convection/CIV dynamics be recognized as a process occurring in the cosmos accounting for the ‘structure’ of electric currents (filaments) when it would uproot the notion of gravitationally induced “dark matter filaments” which are hypothetically extracted via examination of x-rays in plasma? Recall the "Ionization Front" concept induced via intense electric field. It can take three forms:

- ‘Spherical’: (roughly) such as with the quasar/star we discussed earlier. The “clouds” are simply ‘Gone with the Wind’.

- Toroidal: such as with a “circumnuclear disk” and “mini spirals” as put forth with regard to Sag A*at the smaller scale & entire galaxies at larger scales.

- Filaments: electric currents via Marklund/CIV versus for example “Ambipolar Diffusion in self-gravitating filaments”.

In each case powerful electrodynamics are occurring in the cosmos but through the myopic eyes and psychological inertia of gravity only cosmology all of it is attributed to gravitationally induced ‘collision’ oriented derivations and speculations. From the point of view of plasma scalability I don’t see why the ENA Ribbon isn’t the result of a ‘stellar ring current’ as might be exemplified by Saturn’s Ring Current. Consider how large such “rings” can get:

Giant Dust Ring Discovered Around Saturn

From here, with nebular theory and all, one sees an example of just how large the supposed “protoplanetary disk” can get:

Beta Pictoris

Don't be surprised if the ENA Ribbon gets attributed to being a ‘remnant’ of our solar system’s circa 1700’s “gravitational collapse” according to the nebular hypothesis. “Dust and gas”, its the nebular theory equivalent of a 'Talking Point'.

[celeste]

Solar,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... e08515.pdf
That is the perfect analogy. Notice that if ring particles slowly migrate in and strike the leading face of Iapetus, other particles will still continue to stream in and hit Iapetus "broadside", just with lower energy. Iapetus runs into the particles ahead ,while other particles just drift into it's side. An observer on Iapetus should see the same distribution of neutrals from the ring, as we see from the IBEX ribbon. Bright "knot" at end, with lower intensity band across sky.
Also note that they know the ring must be repopulated. Collisions as they think? Or recombination from ring currents, with neutrals continually streaming out?
The rings vertical thickness matches the range of verticle motion of Phoebe. I'll ask, does Phoebe "bob" up and down as it orbits Saturn? Or does it spiral around the surface of the ring? Is this last idea at least testable, since we know the ring's thickness, and how long it takes for Phoebe to cross it, we should be able to compute and detect radial velocity changes for Phoebe if it does spiral around the ring?

[celeste]

Solar, Phoebe does not spiral around the dust ring. Get this: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap091013.html
Phoebe "orbits right through the dust ring's middle". Phoebe also orbits retrograde to most other solar systems objects. Phoebe's dark color leads the mainstream to believe it may be a captured object from the outer (in EU theory more negative) solar system http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/pro ... ect=Phoebe
Together this all makes sense. If Phoebe is negatively charged,it should travel down the center of the filament, in opposite rotational direction to the flow of positively charged solar system objects. The rest (neutral production by recombination,drifting radially from the filament) is the same. My original assumption of Phoebe's charge was wrong.
It looks like comet AND it's charged like a comet.

[601L1n9FR09]

Hi Jim,
Thanx,
kth.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:514306/FULLTEXT01]commentary
Yep, that one turned up in my google result page but just like now it brought me to a page informing me it is unavailable. Kind of irks me too cause it has "FULLTEXT" right there to get me all excited. Not the first time this kind thing happened to me. So I still have not seen it with my own eyes. I will take your word for it though. It might be nice if someone could import the pertinent portions of the text if it does not violate copyright or some such thing. I mean it would be convenient for disadvantaged folk such as myself.

Thanx Again JD

[Solar]

Solar,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... e08515.pdf
That is the perfect analogy. Notice that if ring particles slowly migrate in and strike the leading face of Iapetus, other particles will still continue to stream in and hit Iapetus "broadside", just with lower energy. Iapetus runs into the particles ahead ,while other particles just drift into it's side. An observer on Iapetus should see the same distribution of neutrals from the ring, as we see from the IBEX ribbon. Bright "knot" at end, with lower intensity band across sky.
Also note that they know the ring must be repopulated. Collisions as they think? Or recombination from ring currents, with neutrals continually streaming out?
The rings vertical thickness matches the range of verticle motion of Phoebe. I'll ask, does Phoebe "bob" up and down as it orbits Saturn? Or does it spiral around the surface of the ring? Is this last idea at least testable, since we know the ring's thickness, and how long it takes for Phoebe to cross it, we should be able to compute and detect radial velocity changes for Phoebe if it does spiral around the ring?

So, in the following image, imagine if Saturn were the Sun (*chortle*) with Earth well within orbital parameters, and IBEX was sent up, yes, one would then find an ENA Ribbon relative to that system. Relative to such a system the solar wind, along with “clouds” ejected via CME’s, CIR's would then appear with all the interesting characteristics of being a G-Cloud, “local interstellar medium’ “hydrogen wall”, filaments, radio scintillations etc. Obviously the Sun a lot more powerful so the relationship would be one of scale and relative intensity. Smaller scale plasma dynamics can mimic the larger scale.

I like the dynamic you've put forth above considering that (with Saturn's emissions) there is a tendency for the overall formation to sometimes resemble a 'horseshoe'. There is a small movie of the dynamic (here). Over the next few years with IBEX might not viewers of a solar ENA time-lapse see similarities at the larger scale with the current heliosphere ENA findings? Seems probable. They whittled (refined) the most popular images of the ENA emissions down to a “ribbon” but it has a much broader ‘band’ or ‘belt’-like distribution as seen in the lower Cassini images at IBEX here.

[StefanR]

Very interesting stuff here,

It got me remembering, especially the mentioning of proto-planetary disks, of the proplyds in the Orion Nebula. There is of course lots of info about proplyds in other areas, giving the impression that the
classification is not all really consistent yet in relation to their inner structure.
But the proplyds in the Orion nebula seem to have been observed quite thoroughly as shown for instance here and here.
But what got me wondering is if there is a relation between these proplyds and the stringy features shown here:
Image courtesy of NRAO/AUI
This image was produced by filtering out the large scale structure in this image of the Orion Nebula, M42. Note a web of string-like features with typical widths of a few arcseconds (~1016 cm), which are concentrated throughout the Trapezium region. http://images.nrao.edu/Galactic_Sources ... egions/402

This can be seen in much higher resolution in this article:
Structural details of the Orion Nebula - Detection of a network of stringlike ionized features
Especially at page 6 and 7, but there is some more info in there that seems relevant to the present discussion.

[Solar]

This can be seen in much higher resolution in this article:
Structural details of the Orion Nebula - Detection of a network of stringlike ionized features
Especially at page 6 and 7, but there is some more info in there that seems relevant to the present discussion.

Nice piece of work there though I am unable to see the cause of filaments being due to the two fluid pressure/turbulence/temperature driven "hot gas" Raleigh-Taylor Instability in there. Those are some serious electric currents. These "proplyds" remind me of the plasmoids that form at the very tips of filaments in sun spots:

Birkeland currents follow magnetic field lines, drawing ionized gas and dust from their surroundings and then "pinching" it into heated blobs called plasmoids. - TPOD: Solar Siesta

They seem related to the plasmoids at the tips of these "fibrils".

[celeste]

It's interesting that in the link by StefanR, "Protoplanetary Disks" by Wilner, that they are so sure they are looking at planet forming disks. They don't see any evolutionary trends with stellar age, and there are no transitional objects. In other words, nothing bigger than rocks, and even those don't get bigger as stars get older. It's just that the disks have all the properties to fit their theories of how planets are built, but none are actually seen building those planets.
Now the higher temperatures in the upper disk, and the evacuation of dust from the core, are effects we expect with electric currents. Most interesting is that the disks disappear with age (remember they don't see planets forming,but the disks diminish significantly between 3 and 5 Myr). We know that what the mainstream sees as age is really current flow, and stars can get "younger",(i.e.,as seen in records of Sirius changing from red to blue). They see younger stars with more disk material. We read that as stars with greater current flow have more disk material. Again, this is what we expect, since more current means also more recombination and ejection of neutral dust radially from the current filament.

[jjohnson]

Equatorial disks might be caused by a number of emergent effects during a plasma pinch event.

Has anyone here considered David LaPoint's video on his experiments with plasmas and bowl shaped permanent magnets? Intriguing stuff, but one must be cautious when ascribing observations and effects to something based on similarity or "look-alikes".

LaPoint is promising up to 5 more videos on his experiments and theories, which might be worth looking out for.

On the negative side, he is using specially magnetized ceramic bowls in a bottom-to-bottom configuration as a generalized but static magnetic morphology as his basis for the results. In a plasma, with its very dynamic field situation, I have a hard time imagining how a static magnetic field emerges at all scales (atomic to galactic, at least) from plasma dynamics, but that's the thing - emergent phenomena are almost never correctly predicted: they are described in ad-hoc hindsight.

P. Kyle Stanford's small volume, Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives [Oxford University Press, 2006], is a dense read, to say the least, but in it he shows that historically there is evidence that the bits and pieces of the next scientific paradigm were in existence at the same time as the then-Standard Model, and they were routinely disregarded or not considered by the mainstream scientists at the time, who had settled in to working only with the present model. This happened in a number of diverse fields in science, not just astronomy or astrophysics. Thus the term "unconceived alternatives" — they might be there, but they are simply not taken to be, much less considered critically as, evidence that something else might explain better or link more widely the observations and measurements that are currently in vogue in science.

The point here is that there ARE other things being discussed, hypothesized, tried out, etc. in trying to find better ways forward in scientific explanations and interpretations of observations and measured data, experiments, and so on. It's that they are, so far, not being taken seriously by those who are responsible for directing and funding the research establishments. Paradigms change. New solutions arise, and if better in some way, and if they get considered, may possibly overcome the natural resistance of large human organizations and become the successors, the next "new science".

Emergent Phenomena is a growing field (PBS video here). How does the complexity of "life" arise in the Universe, given the knowledge we have of the "rules" of chemistry and physics and our (very local) examples of stuff we think of as "life"? How, really, should we be looking at how planets form from stellar conditions - in the midst of electrodynamic "chaos". Is it later, or during, the lighting off of a star? Is the EU concept of planets coming from electrically overstressed stars plausible or not? Why?

Are planets a naturally emergent phenomenon, almost inevitable? Which of the simplest, basic rules underlying physics can conceivably ultimately give rise to life or planets or stars? Why, then, does the current model not consider just what (beyond the usual gravitational forces and collisions in space) might be going on electrically in this regard? A simple oversight? Or an unconceived alternative?

Jim

[celeste]

Jim,
I'm glad you brought up emergent phenomena. My first introduction to it was in this book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach It's a fascinating read.
Having said that, I think the fundamental philosophy is wrong. As you say, emergent phenomena is a growing field. But so is string theory,or dark matter research. The difference is that dark matter research will just lead astrophysicists astray, while emergence could lead the entire scientific community down the wrong path. I think maybe we should have a thread on emergence in the Future of Science forum? It's a part of the current paradigm that we must throw away.

[StefanR]

I will have to get back to the relative sizes of the proplyds and the stringy features. The stringy stuff
made me remember the ideas discussed in an older thread:
New Twist on Birkeland Currents
and also to this one:
Recovered: Dusty Plasmas

In both is mention made of the work of Per Carlqvist and his work in relation to Elephant Trunks and such. Also the relation between stringy ionized clouds and starformation is mentioned.
Maybe also take note of the dusty plasma movies in relation to what the Primer Fields movie linked to by Jim.
If there only was a way to combine those experiments.
Maybe I can get more details out later.

Have fun!

[Solar]

It's interesting that in the link by StefanR, "Protoplanetary Disks" by Wilner, that they are so sure they are looking at planet forming disks. They don't see any evolutionary trends with stellar age, and there are no transitional objects. In other words, nothing bigger than rocks, and even those don't get bigger as stars get older. It's just that the disks have all the properties to fit their theories of how planets are built, but none are actually seen building those planets.
Now the higher temperatures in the upper disk, and the evacuation of dust from the core, are effects we expect with electric currents. Most interesting is that the disks disappear with age (remember they don't see planets forming,but the disks diminish significantly between 3 and 5 Myr). We know that what the mainstream sees as age is really current flow, and stars can get "younger",(i.e.,as seen in records of Sirius changing from red to blue). They see younger stars with more disk material. We read that as stars with greater current flow have more disk material. Again, this is what we expect, since more current means also more recombination and ejection of neutral dust radially from the current filament.

Those are points well made. Let me ask you this folks. Does the "proplyd" and its "protoplanetary disk" actually exist? Here is another link on this topic with higher quality enlargements at a different location in Orion using Adaptive Optics:

“Gemini's Laser Vision Reveals Striking New Details in Orion Nebula”

Could these “Orion Bullets” correspond to a better resolution of the so called “proplyd” and its theoretical “proto-planetary disk” as seen here in the Helix Nebula?

Consider the following paper. It eliminates the notion of “proplyds” and their "protoplanetary disk" in favor of “free-floating evaporating gas globules (frEGGs)":

… in light of this study and that in SMC12, it is likely that the true nature of many or all of these objects has been misunderstood, and that some (or even all) of the previously classified proplyds in Carina, especially those which are significantly larger in size than the Orion proplyds, are really frEGGs. - Are Large, Cometary-Shaped Proplyds really (free-floating) EGGs

There someone goes again with that 'gas' concept: "evaporate". Uugh.

[StefanR]

The plot thinkens,or the clouds curl , so to say..

Figure 10 shows dust emission 0.85 mm wavelength from the “integral filament” associated with Orion Molecular Cloud 1 (OMC-1; Johnstone & Bally 1999). In this image, a bright elongated hub extends NS for about 0.3 pc and radiates four filaments to the west, three to the north, and an uncertain number to the east and south, including the Orion “bar” in the south. Johnstone & Bally (1999) state that OMC-1 radiates “at least a dozen dusty filaments.” The four most distinct filaments to the west have approximately equal spacing and are nearly parallel where they join the hub. Within 0.5 pc radius, there are approximately 400 YSOs (Hillenbrand & Hartmann 1998) and the peak gas column density is about 1023 cm–2 (Bally et al. 1987). The gas column density and number of associated stars are much greater than in the nearby young stellar groups of Table 1 and Figures 1-9.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/700 ... /fulltext/

a sinuous filament of cosmic dust more than ten light-years long. In it, newborn stars are hidden, and dense clouds of gas are on the verge of collapsing to form yet more stars

http://www.space.com/19059-apex-image-o ... aurus.html

The red filaments stretching across this image denote the presence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. These organic molecules, comprised of carbon and hydrogen, are excited by surrounding interstellar radiation and become luminescent at wavelengths near 8.0 microns. The complex pattern of filaments is caused by an intricate combination of radiation pressure, gravity and magnetic fields. The result is a tapestry in which winds, outflows and turbulence move and shape the interstellar medium. [..]
Perhaps the most fascinating feature in this image is a long and shadowy linear filament extending towards the 10 o'clock position of DR21. This jet of cold and dense gas, nearly 50 light-years in extent, appears in silhouette against a warmer background. This filament is too long and massive to be a stellar jet and may have formed from a pre-existing molecular cloud core sculpted by DR21's strong winds. Regardless of its true nature, this jet and the numerous other arcs and wisps of cool dust signify the interstellar turbulence normally unseen by the human eye.

http://space.about.com/cs/spitzertelesc ... 050504.htm

The image shows how the raw material from which stars form is organised in tangled nests as well as dense, ridge-like filaments. The white flecks that dot the clouds and filaments are the seeds of future stellar generations.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=50535

Abstract:
The recent evidence of cloud-anchoring galactic magnetic fields motivates us to study the link between the Galactic fields and the ubiquitous filamentary structures of molecular clouds. The orientation of filamentary molecular clouds in the Gould Belt and their magnetic fields are studied using dust extinction maps and optical stellar polarimetry data. These filaments are a few to tens of parsecs long and many have parallel and/or perpendicular neighbor filaments. This cannot be explained by shocks due to stellar winds or isotropic super-Alfvenic turbulence. More interestingly, we found that the filaments tend to orient either along or perpendicular to the magnetic fields. Most previous studies recognize that strong magnetic fields can guide gravitational contraction and result in filaments perpendicular to the magnetic fields, but few appreciate the fact that fields can also channel sub-Alfvenic turbulence to form filaments aligned with the fields. Dynamically dominant magnetic fields thus can readily explain the two types (parallel and perpendicular) of field-filament configurations we observed. We further analytically show that, assuming virial equilibrium, filaments parallel to fields should have higher star formation efficiency than the other type of filaments Ð a fact which agrees with observations.

http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/homes/stein/E ... bai.Li.php

[Frederic Jueneman]

Marklund had written, as outlined in a previous submission:

"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 would extend Marklund convection even further, to where suspected electrostatic potentials impressed on these cylindrical filaments would affect particulates of various sizes and densities to gravitate toward or away from the centers. This would be in addition to ionization potentials which themselves do affect atoms and ions caught within these vortices.