From the University of Chicago
Satellite reveals surprising cosmic ‘weather’ at edge of solar system
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
The first solar system energetic particle maps show an unexpected landmark occurring at the outer edge of the solar wind bubble surrounding the solar system. Scientists published these maps, based mostly on data collected from NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer satellite, in the Oct. 15 issue of Science Express, the advance online version of the journal Science.
“Nature is full of surprises, and IBEX has been lucky to discover one of those surprises,” said Priscilla Frisch, a senior scientist in astronomy & astrophysics at the University of Chicago. “The sky maps are dominated by a giant ribbon of energetic neutral atoms extending throughout the sky in an arc that is 300 degrees long.” Energetic neutral atoms form when hot solar wind ions (charged particles) steal electrons from cool interstellar neutral atoms.
IBEX was launched Oct. 19, 2008, to produce the first all-sky maps of the heliosphere, which reaches far beyond the solar system’s most distant planets. Extending more than 100 times farther than the distance from Earth to the sun, the heliosphere marks the region of outer space subjected to the sun’s particle emissions.
The new maps show how high-speed cosmic particle streams collide and mix at the edge of the heliosphere, said Frisch, who co-authored three of a set of IBEX articles appearing in this week’s Science Express. The outgoing solar wind blows at 900,000 miles an hour, crashing into a 60,000-mile-an-hour “breeze” of incoming interstellar gas.
Revealed in the IBEX data, but not predicted in the theoretical heliosphere simulations of three different research groups, was the ribbon itself, formed where the direction of the interstellar magnetic field draping over the heliosphere is perpendicular to the viewpoint of the sun.
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  IMAGE: Priscilla Frisch, Senior Scientist in Astronomy & Astrophysics, and member of the science team, Interstellar Boundary Explorer. Collaborating with former UChicago astronomer Thomas F. Adams, she made the first spectrum… |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Energetic protons create forces as they move through the magnetic field, and when the protons are bathed in interstellar neutrals, they produce energetic neutral atoms. “We’re still trying to understand this unexpected structure, and we believe that the interstellar magnetic forces are associated with the enhanced ENA production at the ribbon,” Frisch said.
IBEX shows that energetic neutral atoms are produced toward the north pole of the ecliptic (the plane traced by the orbit of the planets around the sun), as well as toward the heliosphere tail pointed toward the constellations of Taurus and Orion. “The particle energies change between the poles and tail, but surprisingly not in the ribbon compared to adjacent locations,” Frisch said.
IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
Citations: N. A. Schwadron, M. Bzowski, G. B. Crew, M. Gruntman, H. Fahr, H. Fichtner, P. C. Frisch, H. O. Funsten, S. Fuselier, J. Heerikhuisen, V. Izmodenov, H. Kucharek, M. Lee, G. Livadiotis, D. J. McComas, E. Moebius, T. Moore, J. Mukherjee, N.V. Pogorelov, C. Prested, D. Reisenfeld, E. Roelof, G.P. Zank, “Comparison of Interstellar Boundary Explorer Observations with 3-D Global Heliospheric Models,” Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.
H.O. Funsten, F. Allegrini, G.B. Crew, R. DeMajistre, P.C. Frisch, S.A. Fuselier, M. Gruntman, P. Janzen, D.J. McComas, E. Möbius, B. Randol, D.B. Reisenfeld, E.C. Roelof, N.A. Schwadron, “Structures and Spectral Variations of the Outer Heliosphere in IBEX Energetic Neutral Atom Maps,” Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.
D.J. McComas, F. Allegrini1, P. Bochsler, M. Bzowski, E.R. Christian, G.B.Crew, R. DeMajistre, H. Fahr, H. Fichtner, P.C. Frisch, H.O. Funsten, S. A. Fuselier, G. Gloeckler, M. Gruntman, J. Heerikhuisen, V. Izmodenov, P.J anzen, P. Knappenberger, S. Krimigis, H. Kucharek, M. Lee, G. Livadiotis, S. Livi, R.J. MacDowall, D. Mitchell, E. Möbius, T. Moore, N.V. Pogorelov, D. Reisenfeld, E. Roelof, L. Saul, N.A. Schwadron, P.W. Valek, R. Vanderspek, P. Wurz, G.P. Zank, “Global Observations of the Interstellar Interaction from the Interstellar Boundary Explorer-IBEX”, Science Express, Oct. 15, 2009.
Related links:
Animation shows how energetic neutral atoms are made in the heliosheath when hot solar wind protons grab an electron from a cold interstellar gas atom. The ENAs can then easily travel back into the solar system, where some are collected by IBEX. Credit: NASA/GSFC http://www.swri.org/temp/ibexscience/DM/SP_draft1.mov
Solar Journey: The Significant of Our Galactic Environment for the Heliosphere and Earth, Priscilla C. Frisch, editor. http://www.springer.com/astronomy/practical+astronomy/book/978-1-4020-4397-0
IBEX Web page at Southwest Research Institute http://ibex.swri.edu/
NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer mission http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ibex/index.html
To view a video related to this research, please visit http://astro.uchicago.edu/%7Efrisch/soljourn/Hanson/AstroBioScene7Sound.mov
Here is another press release on IBEX from Boston University:
IBEX discovers that galactic magnetic fields may control the boundaries of our solar system
NASA mission reveals impact of galaxy’s magnetic fields
(Boston) – The first all-sky maps developed by NASA’s Interstellar Boundary Explorer (IBEX) spacecraft, the initial mission to examine the global interactions occurring at the edge of the solar system, suggest that the galactic magnetic fields had a far greater impact on Earth’s history than previously conceived, and the future of our planet and others may depend, in part, on how the galactic magnetic fields change with time.
“The IBEX results are truly remarkable, with emissions not resembling any of the current theories or models of this never-before-seen region,” says Dr. David J. McComas, IBEX principal investigator and assistant vice president of the Space Science and Engineering Division at Southwest Research Institute. “We expected to see small, gradual spatial variations at the interstellar boundary, some 10 billion miles away. However, IBEX is showing us a very narrow ribbon that is two to three times brighter than anything else in the sky.”
A “solar wind” of charged particles continuously travels at supersonic speeds away from the Sun in all directions. This solar wind inflates a giant bubble in interstellar space called the heliosphere — the region of space dominated by the Sun’s influence in which the Earth and other planets reside. As the solar wind travels outward, it sweeps up newly formed “pickup ions,” which arise from the ionization of neutral particles drifting in from interstellar space. IBEX measures energetic neutral atoms (ENAs) traveling at speeds of roughly half a million to two and a half million miles per hour. These ENAs are produced from the solar wind and pick-up ions in the boundary region between the heliosphere and the local interstellar medium.
The IBEX mission just completed the first global maps of these protective layers called the heliosphere through a new technique that uses neutral atoms like light to image the interactions between electrically charged and neutral atoms at the distant reaches of our Sun’s influence, far beyond the most distant planets. It is here that the solar wind, which continually emanates from the Sun at millions of miles per hour, slams into the magnetized medium of charged particles, atoms and dust that pervades the galaxy and is diverted around the system. The interaction between the solar wind and the medium of our galaxy creates a complex host of interactions, which has long fascinated scientists, and is thought to shield the majority of harmful galactic radiation that reaches Earth and fills the solar system.
“The magnetic fields of our galaxy may change the protective layers of our solar system that regulate the entry of galactic radiation, which affects Earth and poses hazards to astronauts,” says Nathan Schwadron of Boston University’s Center for Space Physics and the lead for the IBEX Science Operations Center at BU.
Each six months, the IBEX mission, which was launched on October 18, 2008, completes its global maps of the heliosphere. The first IBEX maps are strikingly different than any of the predictions, which are now forcing scientists to reconsider their basic assumptions of how the heliosphere is created.
“The most striking feature is the ribbon that appears to be controlled by the magnetic field of our galaxy,” says Schwadron.
Although scientists knew that their models would be tested by the IBEX measurements, the existence of the ribbon is “remarkable” says Geoffrey Crew, a Research Scientist at MIT and the Software Design Lead for IBEX. “It suggests that the galactic magnetic fields are much stronger and exert far greater stresses on the heliosphere than we previously believed.”
The discovery has scientists thinking carefully about how different the heliosphere could be than they expected.
“It was really surprising that the models did not generate features at all like the ribbon we observed,” says Christina Prested, a BU graduate student working on IBEX. “Understanding the ribbon in detail will require new insights into the inner workings of the interactions at the edge of our Sun’s influence in the galaxy.”
Adds Schwadron,”Any changes to our understanding of the heliosphere will also affect how we understand the astrospheres that surround other stars. The harmful radiation that leaks into the solar system from the heliosphere is present throughout the galaxy and the existence of astrospheres may be important for understanding the habitability of planets surrounding other stars.”
IBEX is the latest in NASA’s series of low-cost, rapidly developed Small Explorers space missions. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas, leads and developed the mission with a team of national and international partners. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., manages the Explorers Program for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.
The Center for Space Physics at Boston University carries out a wide variety of research in space physics including: space plasma physics, magnetospheric physics, ionospheric physics, atmospheric physics, and planetary and cometary atmospheric studies.
James F. Evans (12:45:11) :
Your fellow physicists will look at this statement and know you have gone over the edge.
Your mastery of ignorance is superb.
With due respect: Any of you could run a plasma welding machine without power?
Adolfo Giurfa (14:09:51) :
With due respect: Any of you could run a plasma welding machine without power?
How do you generate that power? At the center of nearly all power stations is a generator, a rotating machine that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy by creating relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor. Just as I have been saying.
@ur momisugly Dr. Svalgaard:
Dr. Svalgaard restates his previously claim:
“The slightest separation will result in the very mobile electrons [1 Volt accelerates an electron to more than a million miles per hour] finding their positive partners virtually instantly. Result: there is no charge separation.”
Now, to demonstrate this antiquated claim is denied by his fellow physicists all that is needed is to point to statements by other physicists:
For example, Tim Thompson, an astrophysicist recently retired from the JPL, and an objector of some note to the ‘Plasma Universe’ hypothesis had this to say about ‘Electric Currents in Space’:
Tim Thompson, astrophysicist, was challenged by an interlocutor:”…somehow you’ve managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space.”
And Tim Thompson, astrophysicist, responded:
”Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question.”
And the NASA physicists also deny Dr. Svalgaard’s claim:
“Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth. Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism) that are important to understanding dynamic characteristics of the Sun and how the Sun interacts with the Earth.”
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/electricity.htm
If “there is no charge separation” in space and charges short out “virtually instantly”, then there would be little reason for NASA to state it is critical to study “Electric charges, electric fields and electric current” in space.
But that’s not all, you, Dr. Svalgaard, contradict your own statements:
Dr. Svalgaard presented part of Tim Thompson’s statement: “Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space.”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Of course they [electric currents] do. Everything interesting is done by currents. That is not the issue, which is that the currents are created by plasmas moving in magnetic fields.”
Dr. Svalgaard, your denial is making you look foolish.
If there was “no charge seperation” in space then there would be no electric fields, electric currents, or magnetic fields for that matter. Charged particles are influenced by magnetic fields, neutral atoms are not.
Charged particles, “quasi-neutral”, and thus ‘charge seperation’ must be present in space for magnetic fields to present in space.
Neutral matter does not generate magnetic fields.
Dr. Svalgaard, you need to think again.
Dr. Svalgaard: “Now, you can get a charge separation [and hence an electric field and a current] by letting the plasma flow into a magnetic field.”
Yes, that is true, magnetic fields will induce an electric current or influence the vector direction of an electric current or outright control the vector direction of an electric current if the magnetic field is strong enough.
But, Dr. Svalgaard, charged particles flowing in motion constitute an electric current.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “The magnetic field deflects positive charges one way and negative charges the other way and thus creates a charge separation and an electric current. To maintain the current, you need to keep pushing the [neutral] plasma across the magnetic field.”
Yes, this “shearing” has been observed & measured, I grant you that, but it’s not a necessary condittion or event for charged particles in motion to be considered an electric current. Rather, it is a reaction that acts to increase self-organization of the charged particles, plasma. This increased self-organization causes higher voltage “potential drops”.
This is an example of “one side” of the coin where the interaction of electric current and magnetic fields increase the the charge density and voltage of the electric currents. Essentially, this is part of the reinforcing positive feedback loop that makes electromagnetism so dynamic in the Universe.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “As I have said now a zillion times, this is the fundamental physical process [verified by countless experiments] that drives energy release in the cosmos [flares, aurorae, etc].”
Yes, this is one of the dynamic physical relationships of charged particles in motion. But it is not the first physical relationship, the first physical relationship is the charge seperation of electrons and ions, the plasma.
As Hannes Alfven said, “In the beginning was the plasma.”
The plasma has electric fields, electromotive self-organizing dynamic, which causes electric current, which generates magnetic fields, which in turn influences and strengthens the electric curents, which in turn, again, strengthens the magnetic fields, and so on …in a fractal pattern of energy propogation.
This is the secret of the Universe.
I welcome the new in situ satellite probe experiments in 2014, but their focus and assumption based on magnetic fields is misplaced.
The researchers need to do as Hannes Alfven advised: Not only observe & measure magnetic fields, but also observe & measure electric fields & electric currents.
This is evident and is as NASA has directed: “Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth.”
Your outdated and antiquated dogma is an impediment to scientific advancement in the understanding of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere.
I suggest you get with the program…or get left behind…Leif.
James F. Evans (15:17:47) :
.charged particles flowing in motion constitute an electric current.
Not at all. Only if charges of one sign flows in a different direction of that of the charges of the other sign. You have not learned anything. And now you say that NASA’s focus is misplaced. And there are no electric fields in a plasma, because the electrons would immediately short it out.
But you sound like a broken record by now. Produce a list of physicists that disagree with me and the generally accepted picture that I have shown you. Even Thomson that you refer to does not contradict what I say. So often now I have said that all energetic, explosive, interesting things are wrought by electric currents, and these currents in cosmic plasmas are generated by electrically neutral plasmas moving across or into a magnetic field.
Leif Svalgaard (16:22:42) :
James F. Evans (15:17:47) :
charged particles flowing in motion constitute an electric current.
Let me try one more time:
(1) take a battery. It has two poles [+] and [-], i.e. a separation of charges.
(2) if no conductor [wire] connects the two poles, no current will flow
(3) connect the poles, a current flows
(4) the current transfers charge from one pole to the other, thus draining the battery
(5) after a while, the battery goes flat, no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This takes a certain time.
(a) take a plasma. by some mechanism separate the charges [against their 10E39 strong mutual attraction
(b) if you place an insulating plate in the middle of the plasma between the separated charges, no current will flow
(c) remove the insulator, a current flows
(d) the current transports one charge [electrons because they are so light] from the negative side of the plasma to the positive side
(e) after a while, there are no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This is extremely rapid as as little as 1 Volt potential difference accelerates the electrons to more than a million miles an hour. Hence no more electric field.
To maintain the current in both cases you have to keep separating the charges by doing work on them [called the emf]. For a battery you do this by connecting it to a power source [the power coming out of the socket is generally generated by the power company moving a conductor in a magnetic field] recharging the battery and the current can flow again. For a cosmic plasma you can do this by moving a magnetic field over the plasma. The changing magnetic field in the rest frame of the plasma now separates the charges and the current can flow again. This is the secret of the Magnetic Plasma Universe, and this is how things work.
So, which one(s) of (1) to (5) and/or (a) to (e) do you disagree with?
Dr. Svalgaard, considering you mostly ignore most the obvious points, pieces of evidence, and facts, and that you fail to grasp the nettle time after time. but repeat the same failed claims:
It is you who are the broken record.
But go ahead and cling to your primarily mechanical model. Ignore what NASA has to say and communicates to the public. Ignore what your fellow physicists have to say.
It only makes you look bad.
But then again, your reputation is on the line…and you’ll say anything to try and make people believe the emperor is wearing a fine robe.
You are digging a deep hole for yourself…number one rule when you find yourself digging a hole — stop digging…
James F. Evans (18:24:39) :
Ignore what your fellow physicists have to say.
I had a whole post about what they are saying. But back to science. Which of the ten points (1)-(5), (a)-(b) do you not agree with?
The sun a clothed neutron star!! The ribbon as part of the debris ejected equatorially when the sun went supernova! Electric universe! Have those contributors never read a physics or astronomy book? Complete and utter lunacy. How many of them are 2012 supporters? Jeez!!!!!
Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post in your blog with the link to you?
IBEX…remember IBEX?
James F. Evans (18:24:39) :
Ah..did you stop listening to yourself?
Leif seemingly agreed on many points with you. But..I do have to thank you for extracting so much information from him. lol
And Leif, your patience, very cool…thanks.
This is now a keeper thread guys.
On a lighter note.
What to do with your Al Gore movie.
Pull…..2..3…4…B A N G
In an article from NatGeo: Magnetism, Not Just Gravity, Makes Black Holes Suck, Study Says, “… Via the Chandra satellite, Miller and his colleagues observed a wind of electrically charged particles emanating from GRO J1655-40.
The team believes the wind is produced by the same magnetic field that funnels matter into the black hole.”
This quote stands out in several ways.
But something doesn’t seem quite right. How can a magnetic field exist around a black hole if it sucks everything into it. Also, since a black hole does not emanate electricity, energy or light, where does the magnetic field come from?
Multi-present is a word that comes to mind. Leif had made mention to magnetic fields being continuously everywhere . If a magnetic field is multi-present, void of light and energy, how can the theory of electro-magnetic force explain how charged particles are whipped up by magnetic currents and get sucked into a black hole.
I am not trying to invalidate anyones opinion or body of work regarding this subject. I’m just trying to make sense of it all, and the more I read and question, the more I think Leif Svalgaard might be pointed more in the right direction than you James Evans. But hell, that could all change. I can only read so much.
david alan (04:55:14) :
How can a magnetic field exist around a black hole if it sucks everything into it.
A black hole has an accretion disk around it where stuff that is being sucked in temporarily resides. That stuff [as every blob of plasma in the Universe] has an embedded magnetic field. As the stuff is being compressed, the magnetic field is also getting amplified. Now, time near a black hole is a slippery thing. For an outside observer, time slows down and the stuff going into the black hole keeps sitting at the horizon ‘forever’. For an observer being sucked in, he simply passes through the horizon as ‘usual’ and time for her does not slow down. It will too much OT to start a black hole discussion. The important thing for the discussion here is that also in this case, the magnetic field is producing the ‘wind’ and not the other way around.
Re: Leif Svalgaard (07:40:10)
Yea, Black holes. That’s a whole other subject. Relativity happens ya know.
Thanks again.
@ur momisugly Dr. Leif Svalgaard:
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “This is the secret of the Magnetic Plasma Universe, and this is how things work.”
I do appreciate and acknowledge the statement by Dr. Svalgaard.
I suspect there are still many and profound differences, but one must recognize positive developments.
Positive scientific debate and discourse require searching for agreement in goodfaith — I take the above statement as a significant step in that direction.
Now moving to the battery example:
Dr. Svalgaard asks: “So, which one(s) of (1) to (5) and/or (a) to (e) do you disagree with?”
(1) take a battery. It has two poles [+] and [-], i.e. a separation of charges.
Answer: Agreed, there are positive ions and negative electrons in the solution (using a liquid battery)
CAVEAT: “A good electrolyte has several interesting properties; for one thing it has lots of ion-pairs in it. When we put an ion-pair in an electrical field, such as in the Ni-Fe gap, the positive ion will tend to drift one way and the negative ion will tend to drift the other way. This process will continue until the electrochemical field in the interior of the gap becomes a constant, independent of position, which is the equilibrium condition. There could be some electrical potential gradient; I don’t think there is much but there could be some. And there could be some concentration gradient; again I don’t think there is much, but there could be some. In any case, when you consider the concentration gradient and the electrical gradient together, in equilibrium there is no net motion of ions. In the simplest case, there is no electrical field (hence no drift) and no concentration gradient (hence no net diffusion). In the more general case, drift due to the electrical potential gradient is counterbalanced by diffusion along the concentration gradient. The two gradients point in opposite direction, and when we add the two effects (electrical and concentration) we find that the electrochemical potential has zero gradient.
All that applies to the interior of the gaps, in the bulk electrolyte. At the ends of each gap, there will, in general, be some accumulation of ions. This produces complicated dipole layers there. The strength of the dipole layer depends on the properties of the electrolyte, as well as on the properties of the adjacent metal, as discussed in section 1.6. The strength of the dipole layer determines how the potential in the interior of the gap is related to the potential in the interior of the adjacent metal.”
http://www.av8n.com/physics/battery.htm
The point, here, is that Dr. Svalgaard’s postulate is too simplified, there is electrochemical activity in the battery when it’s first activated (the parts are put together, metals and electolyte) until it reaches equilibrium over a period of time. Over this period of time there is an electric field and drift of electrons and ions to the respective poles due to electromotive force.
(2) if no conductor [wire] connects the two poles, no current will flow
Answer: Agreed, there will be no current across the terminals (two poles).
CAVEAT: Same as above in answer (1).
(3) connect the poles, a current flows
Answer: Agreed.
(4) the current transfers charge from one pole to the other, thus draining the battery
Answer: Agreed.
(5) after a while, the battery goes flat, no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This takes a certain time.
Answer: Agreed. But I note this is a closed and isolated system.
(a) take a plasma. by some mechanism separate the charges [against their 10E39 strong mutual attraction
Plasma is a state of physical matter where the charges, electrons and ions, are already seperated, it may be in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality” it maybe in motion emanating an electric current. No “mechanism” needs to be applied to seperate the charges. Plasma by definition is in a state of charge seperation, although it can be in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality’, as stated above.
(b) if you place an insulating plate in the middle of the plasma between the separated charges, no current will flow
Answer: In a laboratory experiment one can seperate two plasma regions by an insulating plate and no current will flow between the two regions, but physical discontinuities within each region will cause self-organization (thus movement) within each region and electric fields will be present.
Also, space plasma needs to be distinguished because insulators if present likely will not be perfect insulators, more like leaky capacitors, if enough voltage potential drop is present flow will happen through the insulator as a discharge.
(c) remove the insulator, a current flows
Answer: Agreed, with reference to answer above.
(d) the current transports one charge [electrons because they are so light] from the negative side of the plasma to the positive side
Answer: Agreed.
e) after a while, there are no more separated charges, and no more electric current. This is extremely rapid as as little as 1 Volt potential difference accelerates the electrons to more than a million miles an hour. Hence no more electric field.
Answer: It depends the physical discontinuities present in the plasma, double layers can form which act as insulators so in fact discharge doesn’t happen “extremely rapidly, also plasma in space is not analogous to a battery because it is not an isolated system.
Your hypothetical is too simplified, as space plasma has all kinds of physical discontinuities and loads. As stated above the physical discontinuities result in double layers which tend to slow down the discharge. Also, there will be places where loads are present, which also slow down the discharge as they do with a battery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
As Langmuir and Hannes Alfven noted, plasma tends to self-organize and to be cellular and connected in circuits.
It worth repeating that the battery example and the plasma example are not analogous because a battery is a isolated system or closed system, whereas, plasma, space plasma, the relevant matter in discussion is not an isolated or closed system, interestingly, this where Carla’s statement comes into play, “IBEX…remember IBEX?”, the observation & measurements, as the researchers stated and as Dr. Svalgaard agreed show the interstellar magnetic field and thus an electric current impinges on and is dominate in controlling the heliospere.
This is an example of of both celluar and circuit structure, as Hannes Alfven noted and predicted there would be in space plasma.
Again, if Dr. Svalgaard’s hypothetical (of no charge seperation) happened, and “zap” the charges were equalized, with resultant lack of charge seperation and electric field, there would be no plasma, it would be all neutral gases, and there would be no magnetic fields present because even in Dr. Svalgaards claims there needs to be plasma, seperated charges to support a magnetic field.
This highlights the irrational and contradictory nature of Dr. Svalgaard’s claims:
One the one hand, Dr. Svalgaard claims seperated charges are neutralized “virtually instantly” in space. This by compulsion means as a result there would be no plasma, only neutral atoms after the elimination of charge seperation and no magnetic fields. But, on the other hand, his claims depend explicitly on the presence of plasma in space as Dr. Svalgaard allows there is plasma in space and magnetic fields cause this plasma to move, thus generating electric current.
His two claims are mutually exclusive: There can’t be plasma in space without charge seperation, and, so, no plasma, thus, no magnetic fields; in contradistinction his claims rely on both the presence of plasma and magnetic fields.
And, in fact, while Dr. Svalgaard claims there is no charge seperation, thus no electric fields, on the one hand, on the other hand he allows “everything interesting is done by [electric] currents. That is not the issue, which is that the currents are created by plasmas moving in magnetic fields.”
There are electric fields with the presence of electric currents.
So, again Dr. Salgaard’s two claims are mutually exclusive, the two can’t be true at the same time.
Essentially, Dr. Svalgaard wants to have it both ways, depending on how it suits his arguments at any given time and place in the debate.
But this isn’t science, it is rhetorical slight of hand, and needs to be exposed for what it is. It is pseudo-science or sociopathic science where you play both ends against the middle and hope nobody notices.
Well, I have noticed and it needs to be pointed out so others can be aware of Dr. Svalgaards tactics and judge Dr. Svalgaard’s credibility accordingly.
And, yes, Carla, I know exactly what I am saying and the sad part is, so does Dr. Svalgaard.
Leif Svalgaard :
“…magnetic field is everywhere”
James F. Evans (13:48:39) :
……..
“As Langmuir and Hannes Alfven noted, plasma tends to self-organize and to be cellular and connected in circuits.”
……………..
I do not subscribe to theory of EU, but do have certain differences with Dr. Svalgaard’s view as well.
Some time ago I wrote this on plasma’s self-organising properties:
Ordinary particles without charge in Brownian motion move in random directions, charge particles do not. In one of his first major theoretical works Einstein has shown in 1905 that Brownian motion on the atomic and molecular scale is a function of the particles’ size, implying that protons and electrons move at different speeds and acceleration, resulting in rise of potential difference and electric currents on a micro scale.
Collisions of charged particles in plasmas are quite different from normal neutral particle collisions. Neutral particles move independently along straight-line trajectories between distinct collision events, which are typically strong, inelastic events that cause the neutral particle to be scattered in an approximately random direction. In contrast, a charged particle moving through a plasma simultaneously experiences (and is deflected by) the weak Coulomb electric field forces around all the nearby charged particles as it passes by each of them. Since the electric fields around the individual charged particles are quite weak and Coulomb collisions are elastic (energy-conserving), they individually lead to typically only very small deflections in the direction of motion Thus, the trajectory of a charged particle is influenced by many simultaneous, small angle deflections in its direction of motion.
From the above arise important consequence as far as plasma is concerned. The localised magnetic field arising from initial micro-currents, will exert certain amount of a feedback on the original particles’ Brownian motion, bringing more orderly flow to the electrical charges, in turn producing even stronger currents and magnetic fields, until eventually plasma is turned into orderly, collisionless multi layered flow. The magnetic field so created, may appear to be a frozen field carried by plasma, but in reality is a result of number of factors brought into steady orderly state by a negative feedback. Further more, it may be assumed that under such condition, an outward orderly expansion of plasma gas is imperative as it is propelled by the ‘electric charge – magnetic field’ interaction.
Gravity force may impede on this self propulsion, but as gravitation forces weakens plasma flow will accelerate. This is one of the properties of the solar wind. The energy required for whole process comes from the thermal energy of plasma particles.
Plasma particles would be motionless only at 0 K, but since 0 K temperature does not exist anywhere in the Universe, plasma is always in motion everywhere, hence Dr. Svalgaard’s magnetic field is everywhere throughout the Universe.
James F. Evans (13:48:39) :
Plasma is a state of physical matter where the charges, electrons and ions, are already separated
No, this is the fatal flaw of your view. Separated means that electrons are over here and ions are over there, so that one macroscopic volume, say a cubic meter, of space has more electrons than the neighboring volume which has more ions than the first one. The electric field from the electrons, say, is the total charge [number of electrons times charge on one electron] divided by the square of the distance from the charge concentration. That of the ions is the same [if halfway, with opposite sign, but also with opposite direction]. It is this macroscopic separation that gives you the electric field that can drive a current. That the electrons and the protons are no longer bound to each other in a plasma, does not mean they are ‘separated’ by a macroscopic distance. The plasma is neutral [or quasineutral if you prefer – makes no difference] in the sense that each macroscopic volume [i.e. much bigger than an atom, but can still be tiny because atoms are tinier] contains the same number of both charges and the charges are therefore not separated with electrons in this volume here and protons in that volume over there, which is required for a macroscopic electric field to exist and for a current to flow from one place to another. That alone makes the rest of your post moot. In a battery you have this separation [your cut-n-paste with details of electrolytes is irrelevant and you don’t even understand enough it yourself to see that].
If you move a plasma in a magnetic field, the electrons are deflected one way and the protons the other way. This is how a charge separation is created and what allows a current to flow with all the effects that currents can have. This is the crucial point you need to learn.
You will often see the statement that electrons have been ‘separated’ from the atoms. This is sloppy terminology, but may be the reason for your confusion. What is meant is that the atom has been ionized or dissociated [e.g. by a collision with another atom or proton in the generally hot plasma environment – that is how you make a plasma] into an electron and a proton with each particle going off in random directions. With zillions of atoms, all these random directions add up to no direction at all, so we don’t get all the electrons over here and all the protons over there. Rather we get a thoroughly mixed ‘soup’.
When the magnetic field is very inhomogeneous or changes rapidly, you can have local charge separation [within a few Debye lengths – typically millimeters to a hundred meters – thus extremely small on the scale of the cosmos). Double layers can then form with an electric field within the very thin layers, but with no electric field outside. You see, without the energy extracted from the pervasive magnetic field by the moving plasma, we get no large-scale currents.
Your ravings do you a disservice. There is real science for you to learn, if you can.
vukcevic (14:56:26) :
Collisions of charged particles in plasmas are quite different from normal neutral particle collisions.
Is irrelevant since cosmic plasmas, e.g. the solar wind is effectively collisionless. The average distance between collisions on the solar wind is larger than the distance between the Sun and the Earth.
vukcevic (14:56:26) :
The magnetic field so created, may appear to be a frozen field carried by plasma
The magnetic field in the solar wind is not created en-route by ‘micro-movements’, but on and in the Sun [similar for all other large-scale magnetic fields in the cosmos].
It is amazing [or perhaps just due to the deepening science illiteracy, sadly combined with the ready access to pseudo-science and misdirections on the Internet] how people cannot learn that cosmic plasmas are very different from laboratory plasmas. Not because of ‘new’ physics, but because of the much larger length scales and the much larger degree of dilution and the lack of walls [walls have crucial effects on laboratory plasma].
Dr. Svalgaard presents Evans statement: ” Plasma is a state of physical matter where the charges, electrons and ions, are already separated”
And Dr. Svalgaard responds: “No, this is the fatal flaw of your view. Separated means that electrons are over here and ions are over there…”
Dr. Svalgaard stated : “‘seperated’…is sloppy terminology…” and goes on, “What is meant is that the atom has been ionized…”
Yes, ionized into a free electron and positive ion which then are responsive to the electromotive force, which as will be discussed below is the first causation of electron and ion movement.
Plasma “thoroughly mixed” is in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality’ but it still retains charge seperation, free electrons and positive ions. That is why it is referred to as ‘quasi-neutrality’ because it is not neutral gas nor does it behave as neutral gas, as much as Dr. Svalgaard would like to believe.
Plasma in a ‘quasi-neutral’ state is composed of charged particles that react to the electromotive force and that is the first force that causes plasma as Langmuir so elegantly observed, is self-organizing.
I associate myself with vukcevic’s comment: “Some time ago I wrote this on plasma’s self-organising properties…”
Plasma does not stay “thoroughly mixed” in a state of ‘quasi-neutrality’ (if it ever is in a state of perfect ‘quasi-neutrality’ to begin with), the electromotive force (electric field) is present wherever free electrons and positive ions are in proximity. No magnetic field’s presence is required for the electromotive force to act as an attraction between free electrons and positive ions.
The electromotive force proceeds the presence of a magnetic field in plasma, even ‘quasi-neutral’ or “thoroughly mixed” plasma.
The battery is an example of electromotive force causing electric current without the presence of a magnetic field (of course, once the electrons and ions begin to move, a concomitant magnetic field will form around the moving charged paticles). But the first force is the electromotive force, electrons move faster than ions, then the duality or “two sides of the same coint”, of electric current and magnetic fields act in a reinforcing positive feed back loop.
The is a basic construct of causation that physics follows in this situation:
(Sadly, Dr. Svalgaard wants to confuse the causation principle of physics for his own purposes.)
But for the movement of the charged particles, there would be no magnetic fields, both at the micro and macro level because electromagnetism is scale independent up to at least 14 orders of magnitude.
That is why NASA clearly states multiple times: Electric currents cause magnetic fields, as do all physics textbooks and resource materials, this is the demonstrated result of thorough testing in multiple experimental conditions.
Dr. Svalgaard states: “…how people cannot learn that cosmic plasmas are very different from laboratory plasmas.”
Apparently NASA doesn’t agree with you Dr. Svalgaard and I’ve pointed this out to you several times and finally you provided a quote form NASA, but on checking the NASA website found that the quote you had used was a truncated version and you had taken the quote out of context, using it for your claims, when the full passage clearly was not addressing your claim, at all.
There is no experimental results to support Dr. Svalgaard’s claim.
(That is the definition of pseudo-science and Dr. Svalgaard even had the arrogance state there was no need to even test his claims.)
I requested Dr. Svalgaard present such experimental results three times, twice he ignored the request and upon informing him I would persist in that request Dr. Svalgaard presented a theoretical mathematical paper supporting his claim.
(One is left to wonder why Dr. Svalgaard ignored the request two times and even on the third request didn’t acknowledge there was no in situ experimantal results to back his claim.)
The task of physics is the testing of testable theories.
It is not physics to make unsupported claims. That is the realm of pseudo-science and even more dangerous sociopathic science.
It is your hubris, Dr. Svalgaard that has led to this public embarrasment.
James F. Evans (18:39:59) :
It is your hubris, Dr. Svalgaard that has led to this public embarrasment.
Gee, I don’t feel embarrassed at all. Something must be wrong with me. I just bought a book today: “Idiot America: How stupidity became a virtue in the land of the free” by Charles Pierce. I can recommend it highly to illustrate your problem.
James F. Evans (18:39:59) :
No magnetic field’s presence is required for the electromotive force to act as an attraction between free electrons and positive ions.
You do evidently not know what emf is;
In a cosmic plasma [Wiki]:
“the emf is due solely to a time-varying magnetic field that generates an electrical voltage that in turn drives the current.”
Leif Svalgaard (15:43:01) :
Leif Svalgaard (16:11:34) :
You either misunderstood or misinterpreted my statement. It was clearly explaining why plasma is collision-less, starting with a premise what would initially happen in an idealised case if plasma was devoid from any external force. Once plasma was formed would, due to the effectives of electrostatic and magnetic events described, almost ‘instantly’ reorder itself. In space, it is other forces which may act in the solar interior or surface, in planetary magnetospheres or impact of ‘galactic gas’ pressures which would affect such self organised and self maintained state.
Micro currents: Let’s consider a case where plasma is propelled along an imaginary ‘magnetic line’ of force. Proton (or a positive ion) would spin along a spiral left-handed and electron right-handed (depending on orientation of line’s B). Thus, there are two filed aligned (with B) ‘micro currents’ (one due to proton one to electron), flowing in the opposite directions (proton’s in the direction of plasma movement , electron’s in the opposite direction). Two field aligned currents in opposite directions repel each other, so proton and electron can’t meet and neutralise, giving a collision-less plasma flow. However since two ‘micro currents flow in the opposite directions, than the total sum of two ‘micro currents’ is zero, giving an overall impression on a larger scale: no electric current present, but that does not mean that two ‘micro currents’ do not exist. These spatially displaced ‘micro currents’ generate their own B vectors, which are carried forward in the direction of movement ‘frozen field’ etc. etc.
This of course you may, and most likely would dispute, but it is based on basic laws of physics valid equally well in a lab or space, the Sun or anywhere else in the Universe, and importantly it is nothing to do with ‘theories’ of Electric Universe.
Dr. Svalgaard,
For a long time, I have enjoyed reading your posts. And, I have always marveled at your patience in explaining and re-explaining many points. Please accept a simple vote of thanks.
vukcevic (00:56:31) :
Let’s consider a case where plasma is propelled along an imaginary ‘magnetic line’ of force.
Why is this so hard? Field lines are not imaginary, they are very real in plasmas. And in most of the cosmos and certainly in the solar and interstellar wind, the plasma beta is such that the magnetic field is dragged along by the plasma, so the plasma is not ‘propelled’ along the lines of force, the field lines follow the plasma. The gyrations don’t ‘meet’ because the radii have different sizes for electrons and protons. The collision-less has to due with the very low density, nothing else. The ‘gyro-currents’ currents cancel out in a uniform magnetic field of one polarity. Only at a boundary between oppositely directed fields [e.g. the HCS] do the gyrations not cancel out, and in fact as we have discussed so many times, a current will be generated by charges drifting at right angles to the field [E = -V x B].This is not a ‘micro current’, but a large-scale current, generated and maintained by the magnetic field [no magnetic field = no gyrations = no current].