Cosmic Strings or Field-Aligned Currents?

[MGmirkin]

(Baffling Quasar Alignment Hints at Cosmic Strings)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627593.900

SOMETHING has made neighbouring quasars in the distant universe point in a similar direction when their orientations ought to be random.

In 2005, Damien Hutsemekers at the University of Liège, Belgium, and colleagues reported an unusual effect in observations of 355 quasars. They found that light from these quasars tended to be polarised, with the electromagnetic oscillations confined to a particular plane that can be described by a polarisation vector. Though there is no obvious reason to think these vectors should be oriented in a special way from one quasar to the next, Hutsemekers's team found that the orientations were not random. If they took any two adjacent quasars, the polarisation vectors pointed in much the same direction.

What's more, as the team looked at ever more distant quasars, they saw this vector rotate by about 30 degrees with every 3.26 billion light years from Earth. The vector turned clockwise when they looked in the direction of the north galactic pole of the Milky Way and anticlockwise looking towards the south pole (arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507274v1).

Last year, the team showed that the direction of the polarisation vector is correlated with the axis of rotation of the quasar itself. That means that adjacent quasars tend to have roughly the same orientation - again, not something anyone would have expected to see.

Cosmic strings can cause magnetic fields to form along their lengths, says Poltis. The strings are unstable and quickly decay, but the magnetic fields remain and would have become stretched to cosmological scales as the universe expanded.

Poltis and Stojkovic modelled how two giant loops of magnetic field lines could affect galaxies as they formed. A proto-galaxy contains charged particles - electrons and hydrogen ions - which acquire angular momentum from the magnetic field. The net effect is that the proto-galaxy acquires an overall angular momentum, aligning its axis in a certain direction. Two neighbouring proto-galaxies forming in the vicinity of the same magnetic field would end up with their axes pointing in the same direction.

The researchers also showed how the twisting of the magnetic field lines on cosmic scales could cause the axes of quasars to rotate the further out you look (arxiv.org/abs/1004.2704).

Take out the nonsense about strings and inflation, and what they're effectively saying is that galaxies form in alignment with giant magnetic field loops. Thus they tend to have similar alignment and probably spin direction.

Since we don't manipulate mathematical "strings" in the lab to generate magnetic fields, might I humbly suggest they look for field-aligned electric currents (AKA, Birkeland currents)? Since we know that magnetic fields are generated solely by electric currents (even at the sub-atomic level, which leads to the special case of permanent ferromagnets).

all steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description. Such fields are solenoidal: that is, they never begin or end, and satisfy the field equation

nabla * B = 0

This, incidentally, is the second of Maxwell's equations.

-- http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode35.html

...steady electric and magnetic fields cannot generate themselves. Instead, they have to be generated by stationary charges and steady currents. So, if we come across a steady electric field we know that if we trace the field-lines back we shall eventually find a charge. Likewise, a steady magnetic field implies that there is a steady current flowing somewhere. All of these results follow from vector field theory (i.e., from the general properties of fields in three-dimensional space), prior to any investigation of electromagnetism.

-- http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode37.html

Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).

-- http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/

I'd refer them back to the Space.com article Galaxies Like Necklace Beads.

an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.

Trujillo's team found that significantly more spiral galaxies spin with their axes aligned with the filaments they are embedded in than would be expected by chance.

I again humbly suggest that they consider the possibility that said "filaments" are in fact diffuse electric currents and that said currents are field-aligned (aligned with the local magnetic field). This gives a simple and direct answer to galaxy and quasar alignment without recourse to untested / unproven physics. That is to say, let's use KNOWN electromagnetic physics rather than inventing strings and inflation and dark matter and all he other nonsensical metaphysics that riddles the modern halls of the queen of the sciences.

Is it then such a stretch to Anthony Peratt's PIC simulations? Methinks it's not much of a stretch at all. But, maybe it's just me...

(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I & II)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... 6TPS-I.pdf
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... TPS-II.pdf

Strip away the nonsense metaphysics of strings and inflation and we're left with something that looks nearly identical to a plasma and/or electric universe. Go figure!

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Anaconda]

Hi MGmirkin:

Great find!

Your analysis is excellent and cuts through the obfiscation in the article.

But I do have a question, as the below statement is similar to many in TPOD articles, but it seems to raise a question of definition that needs to be resolved.

Since we know that magnetic fields are generated solely by electric currents (even at the sub-atomic level, which leads to the special case of permanent ferromagnets).

MGmirkin, how do you reconcile Dr. Peratt's statements:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Dr. Peratt states that plasma flows cause magnetic fields, but without necessarily being an electric current (the second step causes electric currents, per the formal definition of electric current which requires charge seperation).

How do you define an electric current?

That seems to be a foundational question.

[MGmirkin]

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

I think that Dr. Peratt's statement speaks for itself. Put simply: Currents produce [self-]magnetic fields.

Don't see any issues with it.

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Again, I don't think there's a particular problem with this... It's essentially the same as saying that moving a loop of wire in specific ways in a magnetic field will cause a current to flow in that wire. Remove "wire" and insert "conductor," and you still have a pretty apt description of what goes on in a plasma. That is to say, if there's a conductor moving relative to an existing magnetic field, a current can be generated in that conductor. Those currents will then produce their own associated magnetic fields and on it goes.

So, for instance, if there's some massive current generating a massive magnetic field, and you move a cloud of plasma in a certain way across the magnetic field, then voltages and internal currents may be generated within that cloud of plasma. I suppose currents or discharges could even occur from the cloud of plasma to nearby space, too?

Anyway, effectively, a current is a net flow of like-charged particles in like direction. Or oppositely charged particles in opposite directions. That is to say, two electrons moving left is considered equivalent in a circuit diagram to two protons moving right (or one electron moving left and one proton moving right). Effectively, the net motion sums to the same in all 3 mentioned cases. The circuit diagram would still be drawn with the same arrows in the same directions and would result in the same magnetic field. In an electric field, oppositely charged particles will tend to move in opposite directions. So, in some cases you'll have a motion of electrons constituting the current. In some situations you'll have an oppositely directed flow of protons or +ions constituting the current. In some situations you'll have a little bit of electrons moving one way and a little bit of protons moving the other way (bi-directional flow) constituting the current.

Hopefully I've not mangled that up too badly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_c ... onventions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Anaconda]

Michael,

You have laid out an excellent summary of the processes involved.

And, the Wikipedia entry on electric current backs up what you stated 100%:

Electric current means, depending on the context, a flow of electric charge (a phenomenon) or the rate of flow of electric charge (a quantity). This flowing electric charge is typically carried by moving electrons, in a conductor such as wire; in an electrolyte, it is instead carried by ions, and, in a plasma, by both.

In other conductive materials, the electric current is due to the flow of both positively and negatively charged particles at the same time.

Electric currents in sparks or plasma are flows of electrons as well as positive and negative ions.

These quotes would certainly seem to answer my question, but I can tell you when in discussion & debate of Electric Universe ideas in astronomy forums, great objection is made to a mention of electric current that doesn't specifically define it as charge-seperated particles flowing in one direction.

Now, it could be that the opponents of Electric Universe on these astronomy forums are wrong (no big surprise ).

But let me suggest Dr. Peratt's statements should be read and considered in tandum (that's why I placed the quotes together).

Why are the two physical relationships represented by the two seperate quotes important?

Let me suggest because this is the two-step process that generates electric currents in space plasma and causes Electric Double Layers.

Essentially, a collision between two bodies of plasma will generate a charge-seperated electric current as the result of an Electric Double Layer formation and process.

But notice Dr. Peratt doesn't say, "A plasma flow is an electrical current." I suggest the two-step process is critical for a proper conceptual understanding.

An electromotive force giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.

But perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps, a flow of plasma is considered an "electric current" and a plasma colliding with a magnetic field is an identified cause of flowing plasma.

Yet, the result doesn't just cause a "flowing plasma", but, rather, charge-seperated electrical currents.

Michael, if the Wikipedia article is right, then why doesn't Dr. Peratt simply say, "a plasma flow is an electrical current"?

Also, I have this definition of an electric current from the PlasmaUniverse.com entry for Electric currents in space plasmas:

Just as electric currents generate magnetic fields described by Ampere's law, changing magnetic fields in a plasma (consisting of charged particles) generate electric currents that are described by Faraday's law.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric ... ce_plasmas

Perhaps, I'm being too dogged, but this issue seems fundamental to a proper definition and it seems scientific ideas often rise or fall on the definition of a particular issue.

Now, obviously, in some sense this isn't fair to you because the question is best directed toward Dr. Peratt, I know.

But I do consider you most knowledgable on the subject and a leader of the forum.

And when I go into the lion's den of astronomy forums frequented by opponents of Electric Universe, I need to be on firm ground with a flashing sword of truth

[Jarvamundo]

Well written Michael...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627593.900

Now, Robert Poltis and Dejan Stojkovic of the State University of New York in Buffalo say they have an explanation. It's all down to events that occurred about 10^-12 seconds after the big bang. At that time the universe went through a phase transition, causing the electroweak force to separate into the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force. The standard model of particle physics suggests that this would also have resulted in the formation of cosmic strings, which are topological defects in the fabric of space-time and can take the form of giant loops.

Cosmic strings can cause magnetic fields to form along their lengths, says Poltis. The strings are unstable and quickly decay, but the magnetic fields remain and would have become stretched to cosmological scales as the universe expanded.

riiiiight... so you're asking me to believe this special event that happened .00000000000001 seconds after another special event 14,700,000,000 years ago, of which all traces have vanished.... except for that 'baffling magnetic field' that remains...

Duuuude... you have no clue.... nothing.... I don't have your theoretical mathamagical wanding skills.... but i like any other cave monkey living on this rock can easily tell you... that this is a stoopid unprovable, and unfalsifiable idea.... It is of no use to us... none.... i am taking your bannas off you.... stop playing harry potter with that math-wand and go sit in the corner.

We all know good stories start with "a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away".... but even George Lucas knew to keep it semi-believable... so people would actually rock up and buy tickets to the show...

cmon... seriously... you're 'baffled' by magnetic fields....?

Let us first just use what we KNOW about REAL space magnetism...
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/phys ... press.html
Pay attention now Harry Potter!

From the sun, there blows a wind so hot that its atoms are split into electrically-charged particles, electrons and ions. They are attracted by the earth's magnetic field and the electrons follow the lines of force and produce the aurora borealis. This wind is one example of a plasma, an electrically-conducting gas with such remarkable properties that one, in addition to the wellknown states of matter, solid, liquid and gaseous, has now, in the last fifty years, recognised it as a fourth. It is the most common state of matter in the universe. It was the most important state at the time of the creation of the solar and planetary systems; it is found in interstellar space, in fusion reactors and in welding apparatus.

[Harry Costas]

G'day

Fantastic info, now it gives me more reading.

[jjohnson]

Here's a slightly different perspective, but essentially the same conclusions.

A metal wire or bar and a plasma are both potentially "conductors". Both have free (disassociated from nuclei) electrons, at a minimum. A plasma, which typically at broad scales is charge-neutral - i.e., has close to the same number of positively charged particles as negative ones, has as a result both free electrons and free ions, generally separated by double layers, etc. The positive constituents in a metallic element are bound because molecular forces look for the least energy states which are typically 'crystal lattices', so there are very few free positively charged ions in a metal.

However, neither a plasma nor a length (or even a hoop) of metal will actually be conducting electricity - "delivering power" - from point A to point B unless the "electromotive force" is applied. Electromotive means "moves electrons" for all practical purposes. This can be a voltage differential between A and B (differentially-charged plates of a capacitor, sides of a double layer, Earth to ionosphere, battery to spark plug, copper impactor to Comet Hyatuke, etc.) or it can be induced by inducing relative motion between the 'conductor' and a magnetic field (water-driven turbine generators at a hydro-electric dam; exploding wires in a strong magnetic field (Perrat's experiments at Los Alamos). In both cases, a force is applied which starts, and maintains, separated charges moving.

As there is more resistance to charged particle motion across differences in magnetic field strengths than along the same magnetic field strength (sort of a back-emf drag) (that is, charges 'preferentially' will move in a direction aligned with the imaginary field lines than across them because a force at right angles to the motion vector and the magnetic field induces that action, velocity vector cross B, magnetic field.)

In a wire, the voltage differential is highest at the generator end. The magnetic field in the wire is parallel to the wire's long axis, and can be conceptualized as cylindrical shells of equal magnetic potential centered on and parallel with the wire's axis. Thus the electron flow is preferentially parallel to the wire's axis too, because the cylinders' surfaces are of equal magnetic potential, and crossing from one "cylinder to "another one" which is at a different potential is harder than staying on the same cylinder.

In a cosmic plasma, things are very much more complex as both ions and electrons will exist as a fraction f: (0>f=<1) of the ionized cloud, with some random thermal motion, and some temperature resulting from motion aligned with local magnetic fields. As particle vectors change, each particle's magnetic field contribution changes, affecting the motion of other particles, summed over all the particles. That in turn creates dynamic changes in the electric field, which is also communicated to surrounding particles. In all this, other forces are also present in greater or lesser degree, including gravity, viscous forces and radiation pressure.

The mystery to me, aside from where I last left my reading glasses, is what drives the Birkeland currents which create these huge magnetic fields and relentlessly circulate charge from star to star and carry power from galaxy to galaxy throughout the observable universe?

[Krackonis]

Here's a slightly different perspective, but essentially the same conclusions.

[snip]

The mystery to me, aside from where I last left my reading glasses, is what drives the Birkeland currents which create these huge magnetic fields and relentlessly circulate charge from star to star and carry power from galaxy to galaxy throughout the observable universe?

This is the question. In the new paradigm this is the question akin to "What came before/caused the big bang then?"

Impossible to answer... At this time...

[jjohnson]

K: Yes; it is probably the central question. That's the great, absorbing thing about science. You open new doors and other mysteries unfold. To answer this, we are going to have to get much better at turning the Electric Model into an applied science with engineering spin-offs, get it widely accepted and taught, so that the best people can bring their minds to bear on it. I am cautiously optimistic that this is a doable thing.

A bright, energetic young radio astronomer in Sydney pointed out to me that he, too, considers the flows of electrical energy (which create the galactic magnetic fields that he studies) to be a major question in his understanding of "how things work". Good on 'im! Radio and solar astronomers are increasingly the EU's crack in the door.

Jim

[MGmirkin]

...great objection is made to a mention of electric current that doesn't specifically define it as charge-separated particles flowing in one direction.

Well, as you say, different media will respond differently. In some media/situations, there will be a flow of electrons or -ions. In others, there will be a flow of protons or +ions. In others there will be a bi-directional flow (electrons or -ions flowing one direction and protons or +ions flowing in the other direction in the same electric field).

WRT the issue of "charge-separated" particles, I again don't see a problem. They frequently argue that "it would take more energy than the universe has available to separate the charges in this tablespoon of salt" or some such nonsense... They generally also make the assumption that the universe started in a 100% charge-neutral state, which really kind of makes no sense if you believe in the big bang, which would have basically started with everything getting "blowed up" and ionized / re-ionized. That is to say there would not have been so many "charge-neutral" atoms (with equal number of bound protons and electrons) so much as there would have been a huge universe-wide plasma of dissociated fundamental particles (as best quasi-neutral, meaning equal numbers of positive and negative particles, but not necessarily distributed evenly like +. -, +, -, +, -, +, -, +, -, +, -; probably more like +, -, +, +, -, +, -, -, -, +, -, +, +, +, +, -, +, -, which would imply there would be voltages between regions of "separated" differing charge densities).

It can also be pretty easily shown that plasmas are not ideal conductors and that voltage is NEVER 0 in a plasma. That is to say that there MUST (BY DEFINITION) be regions of differing charge within a plasma.

(Glow Discharge.com -- Discharge Regimes)
http://glow-discharge.com/Index.php?Phy ... ge_Regimes
http://www.glow-discharge.com/Images/GD_Regime.jpg

As one can quickly determine from the above real-world graph of voltage and current in plasma. Voltage is never 0. Electric fields exist, meaning the plasma is not perfectly neutral and not perfectly conductive either (resistance = Voltage / Currrent or R = V / I; ergo since V is never 0, V / I is never 0 and Resistance is also never zero).

So, yeah, I don't see what they're bitching about WRT defining a current w/o respect to voltages and/or separated charges. If they wish to believe that the universe is electrically sterile, that's their business. And they seem rather stuck in their mindset. But, IF there are currents flowing in the universe (and all evidence points to YES, THERE ARE), then, frankly, they need to re-examine their foundational assumptions. 'cause that implies there are, in fact, voltages in space that are non-trivial. If their models require trivial or zero voltages, then most likely their models are WRONG (in some small or large part). Why sugar-coat it?

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

But notice Dr. Peratt doesn't say, "A plasma flow is an electrical current."

Michael, if the Wikipedia article is right, then why doesn't Dr. Peratt simply say, "a plasma flow is an electrical current"?

Hmm...

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

Unless I've completely misread the Peratt quote above, I think that's exactly what he's saying!

moving plasma == charged particle flows == [electric] currents == source of magnetic fields.

I'll repeat my prior statement:

I think that Dr. Peratt's statement speaks for itself. Put simply: Currents produce [self-]magnetic fields.

The only caveat I'd put on it is the unstated implication that the plasma flows would have to be net flows of like charge. That is to say, two electrons "flowing" in the same direction would constitute a weak electric current. A proton paired with an electron "flowing" in the same direction, would not. That is to say, the two signs cancel, thus the net flow of charge is effectively 0. Put another way, both would be considered weak electric currents on their own, but the direction of the "current" flows associated with the proton vs. the electrons would point in opposite directions, and thus cancel out.

[MGmirkin]

a collision between two bodies of plasma will generate a charge-seperated electric current as the result of an Electric Double Layer formation and process.

In all cases? Why so? Methinks that's an overly broad brush...

Are the plasma clouds quasi-neutral (each having approximately equal number of opposite charge signs within their respective volume)? Does either have a "charge" on it (slightly non-neutral)? If so, are the charges on the plasma clouds of the same sign (both have excess electrons/-ions or both have excess protons/+ions) or of opposite sign (one has an excess of positive charges and the other an excess of negative charges)?

If the clouds are quasi-neutral, why should any discharge or double-layer form between them? That is to say if there's effectively zero voltage between them? Or with respect to surrounding space... Why would we expect anything interesting to happen?

Just saying... Careful with defining specific examples.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I do consider you most knowledgeable on the subject and a leader of the forum.

Well, I dunno if I'd go quite that far; I'm just a random guy who likes to poke his nose where it doesn't belong (into the universe's business).
But, I appreciate the complement.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

The mystery to me ... is what drives the Birkeland currents which create these huge magnetic fields and relentlessly circulate charge from star to star and carry power from galaxy to galaxy throughout the observable universe?

Agreed, the "ultimate source" or "driving potential" is still currently beyond our measuring capability and possibly our conceptual capability. But, then again, the same can be said of the ultimate "cause" of the Big Bang or what came before it. Ultimate questions are ultimately very difficult to answer.

Did the universe start charge-neutral or charge-separated? Did it have a "starting point" at all? Is it finite or infinite? Holographic and/or fractal (infinitely repeating the same pattern at all scales)?

At some point, the questions devolve into metaphysics and philosophy more so than physics or hard science.

This is the question. In the new paradigm this is the question akin to "What came before/caused the big bang then?"

Impossible to answer... At this time...

Oops, guess you beat me to that one.

Agreed.

~MG

[MGmirkin]

Well written Michael...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627593.900

...the standard model of particle physics suggests that this would also have resulted in the formation of cosmic strings, which are topological defects in the fabric of space-time and can take the form of giant loops.

Cosmic strings can cause magnetic fields to form along their lengths, says Poltis. The strings are unstable and quickly decay, but the magnetic fields remain and would have become stretched to cosmological scales as the universe expanded.

riiiiight...

Come to think of it...

cosmic strings, which are topological defects in the fabric of space-time and can take the form of giant loops

Hmm, electric currents generally tend to form "circuits" (loops of current). Coincidence?

Cosmic strings can cause magnetic fields to form

So can electric currents/circuits!

strings are unstable and quickly decay, but the magnetic fields remain

Funny, when an electric current is switched off, the magnetic field collapses almost immediately. So, how does a "string" pull off the trick of sustaining a magnetic field in its absence? Something does not compute. Something's got to be there to keep the magnetic field going. Unless they're saying space is a giant permanent bar-magnet, which I doubt.

Replace loopy "strings" with electrical circuits, and get rid of the nonsense of magnetic fields persisting without input of electric current... It seems like the persistent magnetic fields are simply an indicator of persistent electrical circuits in the plasma of space.

Just my opinion, of course.