Dalton Minimum Repeat goes mainstream

James F. Evans (01:51:58) :
[just stop it ~ ctm]
~
Well James we are now viewing magnetic fields in the growth of a protostar.
They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch
Massive stars’ magnetically controlled diets
ScienceDaily (Feb. 21, 2010)
..
However, the question of how massive stars are formed has proved extremely difficult to answer. The role of magnetic fields in particular has been a topic of great debate. Many scientists thought that radiation and turbulence would be the more dominant factors, and hence their formation process would be significantly different from that of less massive stars such as our Sun.
“While magnetic fields have been observed in the clouds of molecular hydrogen from which stars form, observations close to massive stars have up to now been in short supply,” says Vlemmings. “If the formation of massive stars is similar to their lighter counterparts, we should be able to detect the strong magnetic fields needed to both produce the jets and stabilize the disks associated with them.”
For the first time, Wouter Vlemmings and his collaborators have managed to observe the 3-dimensional magnetic field structure around the disk of the massive newly forming star (or protostar) Cepheus A HW2. At a distance of 2300 light years from the Sun, Cepheus A is one of the nearest regions where massive stars form and earlier observations of this region revealed the presence of a disk from which the gas falls on to HW2. In their new observations, the astronomers have found that the magnetic field is surprisingly regular and strong, implying that it is controlling how the matter is transferred through the disk to feed the growing embryonic star.
“Our new technique allows us for the first time to measure the 3D structure of the magnetic field around a massive protostar. We can see that its structure is surprisingly similar to how we think the field looks when much smaller stars form,” adds co-author Huib Jan van Langevelde, director of the Joint Institute for Very Long BaseIine Interferometry in Europe (JIVE).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100218092850.htm

Electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
As Maxwell’s equations state mathematically, electric fields and magnetic fields have a reciprical physical relationship.
Carla, notice something about the ScienceDaily article? Something missing?
No mention of electric fields. No mention of plasma, no mention of charged particles — magnetic fields have no impact on neutral matter.
Literally, less than half the story is being reported in ScienceDaily and, perhaps, in the peer-reviewed paper as well.
Stars are the result of Z-pinches, also called Bennett pinches, in honor of the plasma physicist who observed & measured them in the laboratory.
The magnetic field constricts around an electric current as current density increases.
See Wikipedia entry for pinch (plasma physics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)
“A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces. The conductor is usually a plasma, but could also be a solid or liquid metal.”
“Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts, the aurora, current sheets, and solar flares. They are also produced in the laboratory, primarily for research into fusion power, but also by hobbyists in crushing aluminum cans.”
Dr. Anthony L. Peratt discusses Z-pinches in the peer-reviewed published paper I linked above: Interesting, Dr. Peratt also cites Z-pinches as being a source of synchrotron radiation. Z-pinches are an electromagnetic phenomenon.

Dr. Svalgaard (10:45:00) responded: “No…”
In your opinion. Others disagree.
Theoretical difficulties have been identified with the “gravitational collapse” model of star formation which have yet to be answered or explained.
It is notable that the shape of these protostars take the shape of an “hourglass” which is consistent with the shape of a Z-pinch.
A quote from this Physorg.com article: ‘Hourglass Figure’ Points to Magnetic Field’s Role in Star Formation, August 11, 2006
http://www.physorg.com/news74524033.html
“We selected this system because previous work had offered tantalizing hints of an hourglass-shaped magnetic field,” explained Marrone. “The Submillimeter Array offered the resolution and sensitivity we needed to confirm it.”
“They reported their findings in the August 11 issue of the journal Science.”
And more recently from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory: SMA Research: Toroidal Magnetic Field Revealed in the Protostellar Disk of NGC1333 IRAS 4A, February 23, 2010
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sma/press/2009/ImageContest/lai/
“The magnetic field in the low-mass protostellar core NGC1333 IRAS4A (hereafter IRAS4A) have an hourglass morphology in the scale of few thousands AU (Girart et al. 2006, SMA data).”
And:
“Here we further explore the magnetic field structure within the central 1000 AU region of IRAS4A with the sub-arcsecond resolution dust polarization SMA data at 345 GHz. Our results reveal that except for the regions perpendicular to the center of IRAS4A1, the magnetic field appears to be parallel to the disk that contains the protostellar binary, IRAS4A1 and IRAS4A2, and perpendicular to the large scale hourglass structure. This field geometry is in agreement with the expectation of star formation models with ideal MHD condition; that is, if the magnetic field were frozen in the accreting material, it would be dragged into the direction parallel to the disk around the protostar by the rotation of the disk.”
Of course, “ideal MHD condition” is a theoretical construct. Science knows that MHD is an approximation and real-world physical conditions are not necessarily the same.
The “toroidal” magnetic field is consistent with a toroidal plasmoid, Plasma-Magnetic-Enity. The toroidal (donut) shape of a plasmoid has been observed & measured in the plasma physics laboratory.
Also, Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Once a protostar is formed it becomes hot enough to iononize the inner portion of the collapsing cloud and then can magnetic forces begin to interact with the further development of the star”
Dr. Svalgaard’s explanation seems slightly different from the ScienceDaily article: “A team of astronomers, led by Dr. Wouter Vlemmings at Bonn University, has used the MERLIN radio telescope network centred on the Jodrell Bank Observatory to show that magnetic fields play an important role during the birth of massive stars. Magnetic fields are already known to strongly influence the formation of lower-mass stars like our Sun. This new study reveals that the way in which high-mass and low-mass stars form may be more similar than previously suspected.”
From the ScienceDaily article: “In their new observations, the astronomers have found that the magnetic field is surprisingly regular and strong, implying that it is controlling how the matter is transferred through the disk to feed the growing embryonic star.”
How much of a role does magnetic fields (and their reciprical electric fields and attendant electric currents) have to play before the “gravitational collapse” model is invalidated?
It’s a serious question.
I suspect that future observations & measurements will show magnetic fields central to protostar formation from the very start of their formation. Then where will the “gravitational collapse” model be?
Carla (17:08:30) wrote: “They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch”
From the ScienceDaily article Carla cited:
“The role of magnetic fields in particular has been a topic of great debate. Many scientists thought that radiation and turbulence would be the more dominant factors, and hence their formation process would be significantly different from that of less massive stars such as our Sun.”
“However, the question of how massive stars are formed has proved extremely difficult to answer.”
“This new study reveals that the way in which high-mass and low-mass stars form may be more similar than previously suspected.”
That doesn’t sound like, “They are where they were expected, doing what they were expected to do and look like what was expected. crunch crunch crunch”
I suggest your “crunch” might be premature and with the milk of observation & measurement might end up a little soggy.

Carla asked: “In your opinion, does the interstellar magnetic field and ambient interstellar background have any effect on the sunspot cycle?”
I don’t know. I try to balance reasonable scepticism and an open-mind toward the scientific evidence as presently known. I want additional and more detailed observation & measurement with no pre-determined conclusions — I’ll follow the evidence wherever it leads me.
The Standard Solar Model (nuclear fusion furnace within the Sun) if valid would suggest the interstellar magnetic field does not impact the sunspot cycle.
But there are a number of anomalies (inconsistent observations & measurements) that contradict the Standard Solar Model, to wit:
First, off, the Standard Solar Model (SSM) does a poor job of explaining solar minimums and maximums, particularly, the longer term ones like the Dalton Minimum or the Maunder Minimum. In fact, the SSM doesn’t explain very well why the Sun and all stars are variable stars.
In terms of direct observation & measurement, the SSM does not explain why the Sun’s surface, the photosphere, is approximately 5,800 degrees Kelvin and the corona is upwards of three million degrees Kelvin.
Nor why sunspots are dark (and correspondingly cool) compared to surrounding photosphere if the sunspot allows imaging deeper into the Sun — which according to the SSM, the internal regions of the Sun should be the hottest part of the Sun.
And, in terms of laboratory science, the failure to produce continuously the entire hydrogen/helium fusion reaction. Yes, each stage or part has been verified seperately, but the overall process has not been obtained and sustained.
(Hence, the failure to come up with fusion energy production even after decades time, energy, and billions of dollars invested into the quest.)
This is only a partial list of observations & measurements that contradict the Standard Solar Model.
The ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, but with interesting possibilities, and a number of observations & measurements of the Sun are consistent with this hypothesis.
Althought, there are unanswered questions as well, to wit:
So far, there has been an inadequate amount of energy/electrons observed & measured coming into the Sun from beyond the heliosheath (to fulfill the hypothesis’s requirements). Yes, there has been observation & measurement of electrons going into the Sun’s polar regions, but it’s far from clear the amounts observed & measured are enough to fulfill the hypothesis’s requirements and it’s quite possible the electrons actually detected are simply “returning” electrons which were previously emitted by the Sun through the solar wind and are observed returning as part of a circuit.
There is a strong body of scientific evidence, Dr. Svalgaard and others, not withstanding, that the Sun is electrical in nature. The dispute is what causes the electrical nature of the Sun, whether internal dynamics, external dynamics, or some combination of both.
My own assessment of the scientific evidence suggest it is possible both internal dynamics and external dynamics play a role — what the specifics are I don’t know, but I have an open-mind to additional empirical observation & measurement (one reason I’m excited about NASA’s SDO mission to gather more detailed and higher resolution observation & measurement of the Sun).
An additional problem for the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis is that the sun emanates a large amount of matter and energy, way more than the possible amount of matter and energy received from beyond the heliosheath. This evidence suggests the Sun is its own matter and energy source which contradicts the ‘Electric Sun’ hypothesis, at least as I understand it.
I’ll brainstorm and think out loud. Now, here is where Dr. Svalgaard will club me, I’m sure (oh, he’s clubbed me numerous times already, I’m used to it), but I suspect that the Sun is a ball of plasma, possibly with a semi-rigid framework of some kind, possibly an iron lattice or matrix (like a sea sponge) impregnated with hydrogen plasma filling the sacs or cells of the matrix, because plasma does not want to stand still (the law of entropy) a kind of Biermann battery mechanism is effected, yes, a type of internal dynamo where the plasma wants to unwind, this causes the motion of plama and resulting magnetic fields and possibly the rotation of the Sun. These flows of plasma and their self-sustaining magnetic fields collide with other magnetic fields and charge-seperated electric currents result.
In this hypothetical scenario, there is no nuclear fusion furnace within the Sun, but internal dynamics do play an important role.
The impinging of electrons/energy from outside the Sun from beyond the heliosheath is not the energy that causes the Sun to shine, rather, the analogy I would use is that of a thermostat: The thermostat sets the level of energy emitted (heat emitted by the furnace), but the thermostat is not the source of the energy, that comes from the fuel tank (the plasma in the Sun).
Another analogy is that the energy/electrons and ions (cosmic rays) is a “fuse” that acts to release the potential plasma energy contained within the Sun.
Anyhow, the above brainstroming is just a possible hypothesis, but, at the minimum, one must account for the corona being several million degrees Kelvin and the surface being around 6000 degrees Kelvin.
An external mechanism to explain this set of physical conditions is one possible explanation.
Again, I don’t know, but not exploring the possibilities because one has already settled on a dogma is anti-science and a type of willful ignorance.
That is not compatible to the empirical scientific method.
Perhaps, there are other explanations, but the SSM does leave many unanswered questions, which are not inconsequential questions, in fact, if left unanswered, these questions rise to primary falsifications of the theory.
Man needs additional empirical observations & measurements, if he hopes to resolve all these questions, and potentially there are questions that will never be answered (but that does not stop Man from questing).
Man does the best he can and continues the never-ending quest to understand the world around him and the best way to do that is thorugh the empirical scientific method.
Provide additional and higher resolution observation & measurement.
The science is “settled” arguments are as wrong in astronomy & astrophysics as they are in climate science.

Re: James F. Evans (Feb 24 11:39),
This is wrong physics:
And, in terms of laboratory science, the failure to produce continuously the entire hydrogen/helium fusion reaction. Yes, each stage or part has been verified seperately, but the overall process has not been obtained and sustained.
(Hence, the failure to come up with fusion energy production even after decades time, energy, and billions of dollars invested into the quest.)
A Molotov bomb demonstrates admirably the exothermic properties of gasoline . It took years to create the car combustion engine and harness this energy.
Correspondingly the hydrogen bomb demonstrated beyond a doubt the exothermic properties of fusion . The delays and failure up to now are engineering problems in trying to create the analogue combustion engine, and mainly due to lack of political intent and enough funding . More money goes into building an army airplane carrier than in controlled fusion research.