Faraday Effect, Polarization, Magnetic Fields and Currents?

[MGmirkin]

So, I was wondering about some stuff I read a while back. Frankly, I forget where. But, it related to the Faraday effect. It has to do with apparent polarization of light.

Well, I was doing some searching online and came across this article:

(Optical polarization of the M87 jet)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1989A&A...224...17F

Beyond knot A, the magnetic field presents a complex structure: it is nearly parallel to the main direction of the jet on the edges while it is oblique with respect to it on the ridge line where a very low polarization rate is observed. This suggests that the magnetic field is wrapped at the surface of a hollow cylinder, whose axis is parallel to the main direction of the jet, right beyond knot A

Now, to me, this sounds suspiciously like the description of how you draw field lines around a straight electric current as concentric rings / cylinders.



So, is what they're saying tantamount to saying that they've observed a magnetic field around the jet? If so, are they saying the "field lines" form a cylindrical structure around the jet? And if so, does that not (by the right hand rule) imply that there is a current in the direction of the jet?

Have I misinterpreted their statement somehow? Their statement is a bit ambiguous: "the magnetic field is wrapped at the surface of a hollow cylinder." I assume they mean the "field lines" are wrapped around the surface of an imaginary cylinder. If so, I say the right hand rule applies and they've shown that a current flows there.

Reminds me of the crack about "magnetic slinkies" from a prior thread.

In fact, the description of the "magnetic slinky" in Orion is rather apt, when one considers the pinch effect (magnetic pinch effect, electromagnetic pinch effect, Bennett Pinch, z-pinch; call it what you will), a well-known effect in plasma physics...

"You can think of this structure as a giant, magnetic Slinky wrapped around a long, finger-like interstellar cloud," said Timothy Robishaw, a graduate student in astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley. "The magnetic field lines are like stretched rubber bands; the tension squeezes the cloud into its filamentary shape."

Translation: A current flows through the "interstellar cloud." The current generates a magnetic field around itself. The magnetic field constricts the flow of the current squeezing it into a smaller space... Filamentation is a natural result of currents flowing through cosmic plasma.

I hope I've not botched the interpretation too badly. If not, then could we not do a literature search on Faraday Effect and polarization data to ferret out known magnetic fields? Thence, deduce that the magnetic fields are derived from flowing electric currents (per Maxwell, Faraday, Ampère, etc.)?

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StefanR]

"The next question was, what is keeping this outpouring of material confined into narrow jets? Theoreticians suspected magnetic fields, and we now have found the first direct evidence that a magnetic field is confining such a jet," said Wouter Vlemmings, a Marie Curie Fellow working at the Jodrell Bank Observatory of the University of Manchester in England.

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/magneticjet/

What was not predicted by Laplace however are the very thin plasma beams (collimated jets) that apparently escape from accretion disc cores, in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the disc. These jets are observed around forming stars and active galaxies, and can reach incredible lengths, of up to several light-years in the particular case of forming stars. Scientists think that these jets are how the disc succeed at dissipating most of its mass and angular momentum before starting to form the protoplanetary clumps that will eventually produce planets. To produce such collimated jets, theoretical models all require the presence of magnetic fields; however, no observational constraint was yet available on the magnetic field in the innermost disc regions, from which jets presumably originate.
http://www.ast.obs-mip.fr/users/donati/ ... i_eng.html


XUV image of magnetically driven jet propagating in ambient plasma.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/plasmaphysic ... trophysics

http://www.oulu.fi/astronomy/astrophysics/pr/head.html


The linearly polarised radio emission of energetic electrons within the back side magnetic field lines (green arrow indicats the plane of linear polarisation) converts partly into circular polarisation during its journey throught the foreground magnetic fields. This conversion is due to the fact that radio emission, with linear polarisation parallel to the magnetic field lines, propagates slower than radio emission, with perpendicular linear polarisation. Our polarised radio emission has perpendicular and parallel components, which oscillate in phase. Caused by the different propagation speeds they get out of phase. The combination of the out of phase osscilating components produces a circular oscillation of the electric field, as sketched.
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGH ... 302_e.html

[Solar]

That would be the Theta Pinch:

The term theta pinch has come into wide usage to denote an important plasma confinement system which relies on the repulsion of oppositely directed currents and which is thus not in accord with the original definition of the pinch effect (self-attraction of currents in the same direction). - Answers.com

You know what is interesting, "the repulsion of oppositely directed currents".

[seasmith]

~
StefanR quoting from http://www.ast.obs-mip.fr/users/donati/ ... i_eng.html

What was not predicted by Laplace however are the very thin plasma beams (collimated jets) that apparently escape from accretion disc cores, in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the disc.

So if the beams/jets are not From the disc cores, but rather passing through in a fit of "Pinch", as i think Michael may have been intimating;
the "incredible (detectable) lenths" would not then be that incredible.

And what was the question ?

[MGmirkin]

So if the beams/jets are not From the disc cores, but rather passing through in a fit of "Pinch", as i think Michael may have been intimating...

But is it an inward flow or an outward? It sounds like they're saying it's outward, so I'd probably still go with that. I just think their "black hole" theory is nonsense, given the black holes seem to violate just about everything a black hole is supposed to do these days.

If the objects are giant scaled up plasmoids... They could be ejections of particle beams in opposite directions as noted in Thornhill's article on the topic:

(The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7qqsr17q



Granted, a pinch may lead to the formation of a plasmoid... But I'm not familiar enough with the sequence of events to know whether whatever currents formed the plasmoid are still going on when the plasmoid discharges... IE, is the plasmoid stable enough that it persists even after the formative current is removed? Or does it collapse while the current is still flowing?

Anyway...
~Michael Gmirkin

[seasmith]

MG wrote:

IE, is the plasmoid stable enough that it persists even after the formative current is removed? Or does it collapse while the current is still flowing?

Scaling up to intergalactic timeframes, would we even know if, or when the filamentary currents might remove, or begin to subside.
[ Change in angle of observation, tho currently slow in itself, could lead to false indications of flow, as an ancillary affect ]

~s~

[biknewb]

If the objects are giant scaled up plasmoids... They could be ejections of particle beams in opposite directions as noted in Thornhill's article on the topic:

Ions going out one way and electrons going out the other way. Translate that to conventional current directions, and it would appear like a "current" is passing through the plasmoid. (Plus going north and minus going south means current going north both sides.)
The magnetic field would not be symmetrical, but oriented in the same direction at both sides.
Do I make sense? And has this been detected?

By using the VLBA to study the alignment, or polarization, of radio waves emitted by water molecules in the jets, the scientists were able to determine the strength and orientation of the magnetic field surrounding the jets.http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2006/magneticjet/

It is unclear in this press release whether the symmetrical orientation of the magnetic fields was measured or assumed from premises.

[MGmirkin]

Ions going out one way and electrons going out the other way. Translate that to conventional current directions, and it would appear like a "current" is passing through the plasmoid.

Something like that, yes. That was my thought as well.

My other thought was on the order of "would this constitute a viable mechanism of 'charge separation' in space?"

~Michael Gmirkin

[biknewb]

My other thought was on the order of "would this constitute a viable mechanism of 'charge separation' in space?"

I would agree it does. Classic conservation laws say it cannot increase charge separation, but it probably can sustain a circuit for some time.

My temporary solution is to assume the universe was 'created' with separated charges. A Big Sep instead of a Big Bang.

regards

[junglelord]

It seems to me that only Scalar EM transects a vacuum and that the Phase Conjugate System is natures way of creating wave patterns in a Aether. The structures in question, a galaxy, the waves from the poles are the time reversed phase conjugate waves of the four beam mixer, the center of the galaxy. The longitudinal EM is the horizontal current which runs the stars. 1:10 into the video, transverse waves DO NOT move through the vacuum. Only the longitudinal wave moves in the vacuum. Tesla was right, all american text books are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX0wtPZ8 ... re=related

[junglelord]

The Scalar Potential Has An Internal Structure

The Structure of the Scalar Potential: According to rigorous proofs by Whittaker [Ref. 2] and Ziolkowski, [Ref. 3] any scalar potential can be mathematically decomposed into a harmonic series of bidirectional wave pairs. Figure 1 shows this Whittaker/Ziolkowski (WZ) structure. In each pair, the forward-time wave is going in one direction, and its phase conjugate (time-reversed) replica wave is going in the other. According to the so-called distortion correction theorem [Ref. 4] of nonlinear phase conjugate optics, this PCR wave must precisely superpose spatially with its partner wave in the pair. The two waves are in-phase spatially, but 180 degrees out of phase in time. The wave is made of photons, and the antiwave (PCR wave) is made of antiphotons. It follows that, as wave and antiwave pass through each other, the photons and antiphotons are coupling and uncoupling with each other, because the antiphoton is a PCR photon, and PCR's precisely superpose spatially with their partner. A photon or antiphoton has wave characteristics, because it has a frequency; if the wave aspects are perfectly ordered and perfectly correlated, then so are the photon's particle aspects.

A Potential Is An Ordering Across the Universe: So we have -- astoundingly -- perfect VPF inner ordering infolded in the electrostatic scalar potential! We also have perfect wave/antiwave ordering infolded in there. When you collect a simple set of charges on a small ball or in a region, the scalar EM potential from that set of charges reaches across the universe. In it you have an infinite harmonic series of phase-locked time-forward EM waves going out from the charges to all distant points of the entire universe. And you have an infinite harmonic series of phase-locked time-reversed EM waves coming from all points of the universe, back to the "collected charges" source.

A Potential Is A River of Energy: The point is, you have established a mighty, hidden, 2-way river of energy between that collection of charges and every other point in the universe. There is infinite energy in each of those infolded waves and antiwaves. But in a localized region, the energy density in each wave is finite. Since in finite circuits the potential interacts with a localized set of mass, we shall be concerned with the local energy density (joules/coulomb) of the potential.

But forget the conventional myth of visualizing the potential as pushing a unit charge in from infinity "against the force field" -- there isn't any force field in the vacuum, as is well-known in quantum mechanics. Also, Newton's third law requires all forces to occur in pairs -- each pair consisting of a force and its 3rd law reaction force. From that viewpoint alone, there is no such thing as an EM forcefield or force field wave in the vacuum. There are just gradients of the vacuum potential present in the vacuum. In the vacuum, an EM wave is actually a wave of the phase locked gradients of the electrostatic scalar potential and of the magnetostatic scalar potential. And each such gradient wave is simultaneously accompanied by its phase conjugate gradient wave, because of Newton's third law.

Newton's third law requires forces to occur in pairs of equal but antiparallel forces.

Both wave and antiwave co-exist simultaneously in the vacuum EM wave. [Ref. 5] Therefore it's a stress potential wave, not a force field wave. It's more like an electromagnetic sound wave, [Ref. 6] and so it is a longitudinal wave, not a transverse wave. In the EM vacuum wave's interaction with matter (the so-called "photon" interaction), the wave normally half interacts with the electron shells of the atom, giving translation forces, while the anti-wave half interacts with the atomic nucleus, giving the Newtonian 3rd law reaction (recoil) forces (waves). The EM wave in vacuum is an electrogravitational wave.

Energy Is Internally Infinite and Unlimited: A static potential -- which is identically excess energy -- is internally dynamic and infinite. Energy is internally infinite and unlimited! But it has a finite energy density in a local region of spacetime. Since energy interacts with matter locally, we shall be concerned with the local energy density (joules per coulomb).

A Principle of Great Importance: The only way you can have a "chunk" or finite amount of energy to dissipate in a circuit as work is to first have a potential's local energy density interact with a local finite mass collector. The normal interacting mass collector is the free electrons (the free electron gas) in the circuit. You can have, e.g., (joules/coulomb x coulomb); (joules/gram x grams); (joules/m3 x m3); etc.

Voltage, Force, Potential Gradients, Loads, and Work: Now let's look at circuitry aspects. Conventionally they are a mess. Voltage is "essentially" defined as the "drop in potential." In other words, it's the dissipation (disordering) of a "finite amount" of potential gradient. But the only way you can get a "finite amount" of infinite energy/potential gradient is by first interacting the potential gradient's internal, finite, excess energy density with a finite "collector" mass. E.g., (joules/coulomb available for collection) x (coulombs collecting) = excess joules collected on the interacting coulombs, available for dissipation.

So voltage is really the dissipation of a finite collection of excess EM energy/potential gradient. The dissipation of potential or of its gradient is not potential! You cannot logically define either potential or energy as is own dissipation!

We presently use the notion of "voltage" in two completely contradictory ways in electrical physics. Here's how we got the confusion: We take a potential gradient (which has a local energy density), and we "collect" it across some charged masses in a locality -- usually the free electrons in the free electron gas in our circuitry. That is, we express the finite energy density of the potential gradient (before collection onto charges) in the local region in terms of energy per coulomb. The potential gradient actually is a change to the ambient potential, and so it contains an excess energy density (the magnitude may be either positive or negative). We then collect this potential (actually this potential density) on a certain number of coulombs, which places tiny little gradients of potential across (coupled to) each free electron. The local excess energy density of the potential gradient multiplied by the amount of collecting mass gives the amount of excess energy collected (on the interacting charges/coulombs). On each collecting particle, that little gradient, together with the coupling particle, constitutes a tiny force. F is not just equal to ma (non relativistic case); instead, F (ma), where (mass x acceleration) is considered as a unitary, inseparable thing. So that little potentialized electron (that little EM force) moves itself around the circuit. In the load (scatterer), the little potentialized electron (the little force) is subjected to jerks and accelerations, thus radiating energy (shucking its gradient). Since this is done in all directions in the scatterer (load), that gets rid of the gradient, reducing the "little force" (potentialized electron) to zero because the little potential gradient is lost due to radiation.


tom bearden

[MGmirkin]

You know what is interesting, "the repulsion of oppositely directed currents".

How so? Standard electricity & magnetism!

(Magnetic fields)
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html

--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.

--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Ions going out one way and electrons going out the other way. Translate that to conventional current directions, and it would appear like a "current" is passing through the plasmoid. (Plus going north and minus going south means current going north both sides.)
The magnetic field would not be symmetrical, but oriented in the same direction at both sides.
Do I make sense? And has this been detected?

In retrospect and with some additional thoughts / conversations in the meanwhile, you're correct. If you were to circuit diagram it, you'd basically draw a line through it and the arrows would all point the same direction. Since opposite-signed particles travel opposite directions in the same electric field or circuit. So, yeah, regardless whether you track positives moving down in the diagram or negatives moving up in the diagram, the "direction" of the current flow would still be the same.

So, yeah, makes sense to me.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin