A Spray of Plasma (TPOD Dec 09, 2010)

[Nereid]

A Spray of Plasma (TPOD Dec 09, 2010), by Stephen Smith

The TPOD has a typo: "ESO astronomers have a different viewpoint" should be "ESA astronomers have a different viewpoint" (ESO is the European Southern Observatory; ESA is the European Space Agency: "The Hubble Space Telescope is a joint ESA/NASA project ...").

The ESA PR that this TPOD references (dated to 2003) has a paragraph which reads:

A group of international astronomers led by Angels Riera from Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, have combined observations from Hubble's Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2, the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph and ground-based telescopes. Their work suggests that the nebula's S-shape and hypervelocity outflow is created by a central source that ejects streams of gas in opposite directions and precesses once every 1500 years. It is like an enormous, slowly rotating garden sprinkler.

The paper which this relies upon, where the team report their observational results (etc), seems to be "The high-velocity outflow in the proto-planetary nebula Hen 3-1475", by A. Riera, P. Garcia-Lario, A. Manchado, M. Bobrowsky, and R. Estalella (link is to arXiv preprint abstract); the abstract is:

The proto-planetary nebula Hen 3-1475 shows a remarkable highly collimated optical jet with an S-shaped string of three pairs of knots and extremely high velocities. We present here a detailed analysis of the overall morphology, kinematic structure and the excitation conditions of these knots based on deep ground-based high dispersion spectroscopy complemented with high spatial resolution spectroscopy obtained with STIS onboard HST, and WFPC2 [N II] images. The spectra obtained show double-peaked, extremely wide emission line profiles, and a decrease of the radial velocities with distance to the source in a step-like fashion. We find that the emission line ratios observed in the intermediate knots are consistent with a spectrum arising from the recombination region of a shock wave with shock velocities ranging from 100 to 150 km/s. We propose that the ejection velocity is varying as a function of time with a quasi-periodic variability (with timescale of the order of 100 years) and the direction of ejection is also varying with a precession period of the order of 1500 years.

This paper has already been cited by 18 others, among those are several reporting observations of Hen 3-1475 in other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. With so much high quality, quantitative, observational data now available, anyone wanting to test EU theory-based quantitative models of this class of astronomical object should be off to a flying start.

[jjohnson]

We both know that there is not yet a quantitative EU theory.

EU ideas and interpretations are interesting and often differences are pointed out between them and interpretations from the Standard Model point of view, but you have been here long enough for that light to have come on by now. But that does not a theory make, and the ideas, although widely available on the web, have not yet attracted the interest of those who might be able to bring the coherency, rigor and mathematical physics skills to assess them or lay out a path to a status of "working theory". Or even, possibly, a "working hypothesis".

I hope you are not baiting us. I know the EU concepts need a basis of more space-based measurements in our own solar system and of our own star before being trotted out to try to examine quantitatively how they apply to Hen 3-1475. I don't know if the arms in this observation have a flat rotation rate or not, but it still seems to be a challenge for the Standard Model's theory to quantitatively evaluate observed flat rotation rates without invoking something that cannot be detected, but only inferred because, without dark matter the Standard Model doesn't predict it all that well, either.

Jim

[Nereid]

Jim,

Put two things you wrote next to each other:

"We both know that there is not yet a quantitative EU theory."
"I know the EU concepts need a basis of more space-based measurements in our own solar system and of our own star"

I'm puzzled; how would more space-based measurements - whether in our own solar system or not - develop, or refine, EU concepts if there is no quantitative theory?

I don't know if the arms in this observation have a flat rotation rate or not, but it still seems to be a challenge for the Standard Model's theory to quantitatively evaluate observed flat rotation rates without invoking something that cannot be detected, but only inferred because, without dark matter the Standard Model doesn't predict it all that well, either.

Hen 3-1475 is not a galaxy (it's a proto-planetary nebula). As far as I know, no CDM (cold, dark matter) is used in any models of such objects, and never has been.

Do you have a reference that says otherwise?

[jjohnson]

First question: EU authors have written that stars derive their energy externally from Birkeland currents which carry electric energy across vast distances of space and light up the stars. This is a fetching idea in itself,but so far as I know there have not been a lot of detectors designed to measure electric currents over large regions and latitudes in the solar system that could help refute or substantiate such an idea.

Ulysses was the only solar probe to travel and observe over both poles of the Sun. Nearly everything else tends to remain pretty well near the ecliptic, which I think may not present a balanced or complete picture of current movements and characterization. So, my point is that the EU ideas spring from observations and inferences, and so far are more like painting a different picture from that described by most of the Standard Model. That makes them interesting, but not a theory in the more rigorous sense that the Standard Model is a theory. I think that before the EU model might become a theory, it needs more instrumented in situ evidence on which to mount a constructive effort to ground the ideas with. From what I see in papers from plasma labs, nothing there seems to refute the general ideas of the EU model, but not much research is being done to look for evidence that would refute or support those ideas either way, and I get the general feeling that most researchers today would rather avoid discussing their findings in terms using electrical terms, and prefer to work in magnetics and fluid dynamics instead of electrodynamics.

This is the basis for the two statements. If an idea is not a recognized theory because it doesn't present the math that could support it, what is wrong with wishing for measurements to be made that might lend support and indicate what math development might help out? Further, despite all the sophisticated math and the inference (only) that the core of the Sun contains a huge fusion reaction engine that powers it, it has not yet proven possible to duplicate such fusion successfully for more than the briefest of times in huge, powerful, expensive, decades-long experiments in the lab. Sure, successful math helps, but successful experiments and observed predictions help more.

Second question: No. I did not state that it was a galaxy. I observed that it had arms [unusual for a planetary nebula] and wondered if they exhibited a flat rotation rate (like spiral galaxies do). In which case, I wondered (since Newtonian orbital dynamics don't predict a flat rotation rate) if the CDM hypothesis would need to be applied to it (too) to account for that. I have not read anything about whether this odd nebula's rotation rate is "flat" or not, either way. It may be in the literature, or not.

I suspect that your "as far as I know" is far wider and deeper than mine. How do scientists classify something with this unusual morphology as a "proto-planetary" nebula? How do they know in advance that it is, or is likely, to form planets? Or am I interpreting the wording incorrectly, and it means proto planetary-nebula, and is on its way to becoming a plain old standard planetary nebula? Just curious. I thought the standard model of planetary nebulae was that they were "the dying gasps of a star that has shed its atmosphere and collapsed to a white dwarf or neutron star" - something along those lines. Do you know if there is there a star centered in that spiral somewhere? The linked paper simply refers repeatedly to "a central source". It also notes objects noted as "knots" in the observations. Knots are a known type of plasma instability, oddly enough, although whether these are interpreted that way or not is not clear, other than general morphology.

Thanks.

Jim

[Lloyd]

We both know that there is not yet a quantitative EU theory.

* I disagree. You both may ASSUME there is no quantitative EU theory, but, if so, you're wrong. You shouldn't assume that you know of everything that's been theorized. Juergens, Thornhill et al have a much more quantitative theory than what plain gravity theorists have. EU theory more comprehensively explains many more observed cosmic phenomena [and with Occam simplicity] than any other theory I know of.

[Jarvamundo]

and then theres always the quantitative reality of dark matter to consider

[Nereid]

Jim,

Once again your post is excellent ... and once again I'm going to have to take several of mine to respond.

As I understand it - and (here's comes my well-used caveat!) I'll be the first to admit my current knowledge is very limited - the Juergens model, as published, is sufficiently quantitative as to be tested with data available today.

For example, in order to be able to generate the observed power output of the Sun, the kind of currents Juergens proposed would require rather a lot of electrons (or ions? or both??) to be streaming into the Sun, and for them to be relativistic at about the distance of the Earth (Birkeland's early idea, per his main published work, required something similar, I think).

Now there certainly are relativistic charged particles in our local environment - they're called cosmic rays. However, they are essentially isotropic, and there are far too few of them to be able to power the Sun even if they weren't.

So Juergens' model is inconsistent with what's been observed, both here on the ground and by in situ space probes (at least it's inconsistent in its original form, it's entirely possible that someone may be able to tweak it - add parameters, adjust input values, and so on - to produce a new version that may be consistent).

But note that Juergens' model could only be tested because it was sufficiently quantitative.

[Physicist]

You both may ASSUME there is no quantitative EU theory, but, if so, you're wrong. You shouldn't assume that you know of everything that's been theorized. Juergens, Thornhill et al have a much more quantitative theory than what plain gravity theorists have.

Lloyd - I am relieved and intrigued to hear that EU theory is more quantitative than general relativity. Could you provide a list of some quantitative predictions of EU theory? Perhaps in the "EU position wrt fundamental physics" thread, so as not to compromise the focus of this thread?

[David Talbott]

For example, in order to be able to generate the observed power output of the Sun, the kind of currents Juergens proposed would require rather a lot of electrons (or ions? or both??) to be streaming into the Sun, and for them to be relativistic at about the distance of the Earth (Birkeland's early idea, per his main published work, required something similar, I think).

Now there certainly are relativistic charged particles in our local environment - they're called cosmic rays. However, they are essentially isotropic, and there are far too few of them to be able to power the Sun even if they weren't.

Nereid, are you aware that Wal Thornhill's glow discharge model, which modifies the Juergens model, does not require relativistic particles zipping by the Earth? I'm wondering if you've read the Electric Universe chapter on the Sun, and if there is any statement of fact in the chapter that you would correct. Given the acceleration of the solar wind up to a quarter of the speed of light, the suggestion of an electric field is surely reasonable.

Another way to pose the question: Does it bother you that astrophysicists have been puzzling for decades over the acceleration of the solar wind, but drawing blanks? By all appearances this failure can only be due to an ideologically-constrained field of view, since no force measured in the real world—other than the electric force—can achieve the observed effect.

[Nereid]

For example, in order to be able to generate the observed power output of the Sun, the kind of currents Juergens proposed would require rather a lot of electrons (or ions? or both??) to be streaming into the Sun, and for them to be relativistic at about the distance of the Earth (Birkeland's early idea, per his main published work, required something similar, I think).

Now there certainly are relativistic charged particles in our local environment - they're called cosmic rays. However, they are essentially isotropic, and there are far too few of them to be able to power the Sun even if they weren't.

Nereid, are you aware that Wal Thornhill's glow discharge model, which modifies the Juergens model, does not require relativistic particles zipping by the Earth?

Yes, I am.

I'm wondering if you've read the Electric Universe chapter on the Sun, and if there is any statement of fact in the chapter that you would correct. Given the acceleration of the solar wind up to a quarter of the speed of light, the suggestion of an electric field is surely reasonable.

Perhaps you can help me out here David Talbott; in Thornhill (2007) there is a parameter "Amp/m2". However, nowhere in that paper, or any it references, or are referenced by it, can I find an estimate of expected/typical value(s) of this, for the Sun (or any other star, or class of star, for that matter).

Do you know if there is a published paper with such an estimate? If so, can you cite it please?

Another way to pose the question: Does it bother you that astrophysicists have been puzzling for decades over the acceleration of the solar wind, but drawing blanks?

I am ignorant of this aspect of space physics (as far as I know astrophysicists haven't published much on this topic for several decades, now that there are excellent space probes equipped with all kinds of plasma science detectors). Do you know of a published review paper on this topic?

[David Talbott]

Nereid, are you asking for citations on the oft-acknowledged quandaries of polar jets, coronal heating, and acceleration of the solar wind? I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I'm having a hard time believing that you're not seeing such acknowledgements every other day. You do appear to be well read, and I'd prefer not to think that you've ignored unanswered questions that have troubled astrophysicists all these years.

If this really is what you are asking for, I'll pull together a few references or (preferably) get someone else to do it.

[MrAmsterdam]

Hi Neired,

I am ignorant of this aspect of space physics (as far as I know astrophysicists haven't published much on this topic for several decades, now that there are excellent space probes equipped with all kinds of plasma science detectors).

Could you state the names of these spaceprobes? What kind of "plasma science detectors" would they carry?
It would be a simple job to read the sensor data in a variable such as "Amp/m2" when such a spaceprobe passes through a plasma 'field'.

[jjohnson]

Since watts is amps times volts, what one has to do to is divide the watts per sq m (a common stellar output value derived from the Boltzmann equation [if I remember right] and the inferred surface area of the emitter star) by the voltage to get amps per sq m. Ah, there's the rub!

Divine the voltage differential present, and you may be able to derive an answer. Is it the voltage drop from the photosphere up to, say, the base of the lower corona? To the heliopause where EU says galactic electrons may be thought of as being "collected"?

This is a very hard question. Jarvomundo and I were discussing the electric currents among the stars with a young, smart radio astronomer in Sydney. (Yes; currents!) His response was along the lines of, "Yes - everyone knows that there are magnetic fields and electric currents. The big question is what keeps them going for millions or billions of years?" He wasn't shying away from the currents side at all; it was what is essentially the voltage question - what push or pull keeps all these charged particles moving wherever it is that they are going over billions of meters and billions of parsecs.

No one knows. All we can deal with is what we can learn.

For Dr. Don Scott's approach to working this problem with our Sun, read through Appendix C on page 235 in his The Electric Sky.

Jim

[Nereid]

Hi Neired,

I am ignorant of this aspect of space physics (as far as I know astrophysicists haven't published much on this topic for several decades, now that there are excellent space probes equipped with all kinds of plasma science detectors).

Could you state the names of these spaceprobes? What kind of "plasma science detectors" would they carry?

Here are some (there are quite a few others!); the links will take you to webpages/websites which describe - sometimes in great detail - the experiments and/or detectors:
* Galileo Orbiter
* Venus Express
* Voyagers I and 2
* Cassini Orbiter
* the Cluster mission

[Nereid]

So Juergens' model is inconsistent with what's been observed, both here on the ground and by in situ space probes (at least it's inconsistent in its original form, it's entirely possible that someone may be able to tweak it - add parameters, adjust input values, and so on - to produce a new version that may be consistent).

Nereid, are you aware that Wal Thornhill's glow discharge model, which modifies the Juergens model, does not require relativistic particles zipping by the Earth?

First, in case anyone stumbles upon this thread de novo, there's a more recent thread here in this forum on this: The calculation is supposed to disprove Juergens

Since watts is amps times volts, what one has to do to is divide the watts per sq m (a common stellar output value derived from the Boltzmann equation [if I remember right] and the inferred surface area of the emitter star) by the voltage to get amps per sq m. Ah, there's the rub!

Divine the voltage differential present, and you may be able to derive an answer. Is it the voltage drop from the photosphere up to, say, the base of the lower corona? To the heliopause where EU says galactic electrons may be thought of as being "collected"?

This is a very hard question. Jarvomundo and I were discussing the electric currents among the stars with a young, smart radio astronomer in Sydney. (Yes; currents!) His response was along the lines of, "Yes - everyone knows that there are magnetic fields and electric currents. The big question is what keeps them going for millions or billions of years?" He wasn't shying away from the currents side at all; it was what is essentially the voltage question - what push or pull keeps all these charged particles moving wherever it is that they are going over billions of meters and billions of parsecs.

No one knows. All we can deal with is what we can learn.

For Dr. Don Scott's approach to working this problem with our Sun, read through Appendix C on page 235 in his The Electric Sky.

I'm trying to catch up on all the excellent posts by jjohnson; this is one of them.

In addition to the above, new, thread, there are several older ones, here in this forum, on this topic; for example:
Mathematical Criticism of the Electrical Sun
The Electric Sun
The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

Does anyone know if there is any tension (to use a contemporary term, in physics) between how Peratt modeled (and simulated) galaxy formation (and more) in his two 1986 papers (and his book; see this thread for more details) and the electrodynamic nature of plasmas that Scott refers to with regard to the Electric Sun idea*?

In particular, is the math (and the physics behind it) in Scott's document on the Sun' electric field consistent with that in Peratt's papers?

* Just one, of many, examples I found with a quick search (source): "It is NOT a simple electrostatic problem – it is a dynamic one that requires more than the electrostatics section of a second year physics course to understand" (Scott is referring to double layers, but this electrostatics/electrodynamics contrast is very often highlighted)