You’d think the science on the Van Allen Radiation belts was long ago considered “settled science”. Nope. And yet, while we discover new things like this, some insist we fully understand all aspects of the workings of Earth’s climate.
Instruments detect never-before-seen phenomenon in Earth’s Magnetosphere
The belts are a pair of donut shaped zones of charged particles that surround Earth and occupy the inner region of our planet’s Magnetosphere.
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., March 1, 2013—U.S. researchers, including a trio from Los Alamos National Laboratory, have witnessed the mysterious appearance of a relatively long-lived zone of high-energy electrons stored between Earth’s Van Allen radiation belts.
The surprising findings, discovered by NASA’s Van Allen Probes (formerly known as the Radiation Belt Storm Probes), were outlined Thursday in Science Express and during a press conference at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. The research was led by Dan Baker of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics.
“Nature keeps on surprising us by producing long-lived harsh environments in space in regions not previously considered,” said Los Alamos plasma physicist Reiner Friedel of LANL’s Intelligence and Space Research Division. “This finding may impact the planning of future space missions.”
The Van Allen radiation belts — named in honor James Van Allen, who discovered them nearly 50 years ago — are a pair of donut shaped zones of charged particles that surround Earth and occupy the inner region of our planet’s Magnetosphere. The outer belt contains extremely high-energy electrons, while the inner belt is comprised of energetic protons and electrons. The belts have been studied extensively since the dawn of the Space Age, because the high-energy particles in the outer ring can cripple or disrupt spacecraft. Long-term observation of the belts have hinted that the belts can act as efficient and powerful particle accelerators; the recent observations by the Van Allen Probes—a pair of spacecraft launched in August 2012—now seem to confirm this.
Shortly after launch, the spacecraft activated their Relativistic Electron-Proton Telescope (REPT) instruments to measure particles within the belts and their immediate environs. The instrument immediately detected on September 1, 2012, the presence of a stable zone of high-energy electrons residing between the belts. This donut-shaped third ring nestled between the belts existed for nearly a month before being obliterated by a powerful shockwave of particles emanating from center of the solar system.
Such a distinct, long-lasting ring of high-energy electrons had never before been seen by any prior instrument in space or on Earth. The findings suggest that the Van Allen Belts somehow capture and store energetic electrons in a circular path around our home planet, perhaps in much the same way as a cyclotron can capture and store charged particles here on Earth.
“One of the main reasons the Van Allen Probe instruments are seeing these new features are their unprecedented sensitivity and rejection of backgrounds,” Friedel said. “As the mission proceeds, we expect further surprises that will challenge our conventional wisdom on the transport, loss and energization processes in these highly energetic electron radiation regions.”
In addition to Friedel, Los Alamos research team members include Geoffrey D. Reeves and Michael G. Henderson. The research team is also represented by the Goddard Space Flight Center, University of New Hampshire, The Southwest Research Institute, Dartmouth College, the University of California—Los Angeles, University of Iowa, and The Aerospace Corporation.
@lief, I am confused about something. When did the “missing neutrino problem” suddenly go away?
keith says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:17 am
@lief, I am confused about something. When did the “missing neutrino problem” suddenly go away?
Yes, it did. It turned out to be a spectacular confirmation of the standard solar model and our understanding of its nuclear fusion. We only measured a third of the expected flux using the original detector. There are three kinds of neutrinos [electron neutrinos, muon-neutrinos, and tau-neutrinos – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino ]. The sun only produces electron neutrinos and the old detector was only sensitive to electron neutrinos. Newer detectors are sensitive to all three kinds of neutrinos [and see all three coming from the Sun] and if we fire electron neutrinos [that we produce in known amounts in nuclear reactors] towards the newer detectors we observe a mixture of all three types. The explanation is that neutrinos turn out to have a tiny mass and that allows them [according to standard theory] to change their kind in flight, and so they do, explaining why only one third is observed as electron neutrinos. So, instead of being a problem, the neutrino ‘problem’ turns out to be a spectacular confirmation of our understanding.
keith says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:17 am
When did the “missing neutrino problem” suddenly go away?
As to ‘when’, 1998 will be a good time. Thus a pretty long time [like 15 years]. How come you missed it?
Keith says:
March 7, 2013 at 8:16 am
So if you cant get a “real” point, a singularity is perhaps a point tooo far.
The singularity in a black hole is not a point. The volume of a black hole is the surface area of its event horizon times the length of time the hole exists. [you multiply the time by the speed of light to get that length]. Since the hole lasts forever [practically] its volume is for all intents and purposes infinite. You can pour stuff into a black hole forever without filling it up.
lsvalgaard says:
March 7, 2013 at 9:03 am
Yes, it did. It turned out to be a spectacular confirmation of the standard solar model and our understanding of its nuclear fusion. We only measured a third of the expected flux using the original detector. There are three kinds of neutrinos [electron neutrinos, muon-neutrinos, and tau-neutrinos – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino ]. The sun only produces electron neutrinos and the old detector was only sensitive to electron neutrinos. Newer detectors are sensitive to all three kinds of neutrinos [and see all three coming from the Sun] and if we fire electron neutrinos [that we produce in known amounts in nuclear reactors] towards the newer detectors we observe a mixture of all three types. The explanation is that neutrinos turn out to have a tiny mass and that allows them [according to standard theory] to change their kind in flight, and so they do, explaining why only one third is observed as electron neutrinos. So, instead of being a problem, the neutrino ‘problem’ turns out to be a spectacular confirmation of our understanding.
Leif you are overselling a possible explanation as a proven truth.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/
Possible Explanations:
“What about the third possible explanation, new physics? Already in 1969, Bruno Pontecorvo and Vladimir Gribov of the Soviet Union proposed the third explanation listed above, namely, that neutrinos behave differently than physicists had assumed. Very few physicists took the idea seriously at the time it was first proposed, but the evidence favoring this possibility increased with time.
Evidence Favors New Physics”
Summarizing: we receive from the sun different neutrinos which total our expecting numbers but in different flavors, as our model shows something else was produced, so it must be that they transform.
There is one step missing, to have the neutrinos conversion proven
Has this been proven? No, the results are inconclusive at the moment. Or maybe you have more information?
Lars P. says:
March 9, 2013 at 4:54 am
There is one step missing, to have the neutrinos conversion proven
Has this been proven? No, the results are inconclusive at the moment. Or maybe you have more information?
Neutrino oscillations have been directly observed http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/whatsnew/DOC-20110615/KEK110613english.pdf
And all three types have been directly observed coming from the Sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory
Nothing is missing.
Lars P. says:
March 9, 2013 at 4:54 am
There is one step missing, to have the neutrinos conversion proven
Has this been proven? No, the results are inconclusive at the moment.
This might be helpful: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0303116v1.pdf
lsvalgaard says:
March 9, 2013 at 7:00 am
Leif, thank you for the posts. I was traveling and had not yet the time to digest these, but it will be an interesting lecture!
There is still one point that I do not feel comfortable with. This does not invalidate EU or all EU hypothesis. There are many hypothesis linked to the reality of electricity in space. A lot of them may be wrong, a lot of them nonsense, however several will survive and be valuable amendments to the current theories.
As said where I am feeling uncomfortable is when people try to separate magnetism and conclude there are no currents existing in space only the frozen-in magnetic fields.
Those frozen-in magnetic fields postulate frozen-in currents. But the currents and the magnetic fields are not frozen-in, as plasma is no superconductor, but if it would be then you have the frozen-in currents…
Lars P. says:
March 11, 2013 at 3:13 pm
This does not invalidate EU or all EU hypothesis. There are many hypothesis linked to the reality of electricity in space. A lot of them may be wrong, a lot of them nonsense, however several will survive and be valuable amendments to the current theories.
None will survive as electric currents are already [and have been for decades] an integral part of mainstream science. Everything interesting happens because of electric currents [or gravity]. The difference with EU is that in real science, the currents are generated by rapid changes of the magnetic field on so small scales that the field is no longer frozen-in [the reconnection process]. All space scientists know this and use this paradigm every day. You see, something has to drive a current, it is called the emf [the electromotive force]. In the EU there is no emf, currents happen by miracle. The plasma is a superconductor on large length scales, but certainly not on the micro-scale. Nobody who knows anything about space physics are claiming it is. When you say that a lot of EU is nonsense, then you are akin with the people, who when it is demonstrated that spoon-bender Uri Geller has been caught cheating 50% of the time, say “so what? the other 50% is the real thing”.
lsvalgaard says:
March 11, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Everything interesting happens because of electric currents [or gravity].
correct.
The difference with EU is that in real science, the currents are generated by rapid changes of the magnetic field on so small scales that the field is no longer frozen-in [the reconnection process].
the frozen-in magnetic fields is where the “consensus” is wrong. Those fields must come from somewhere. There is no magnetic charge as such creating those fields. You are wrong about cause and effect.
Lets take something that was already observed:
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/92
“The key, says Ruth Bamford of Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in England, is that an electric field is generated by the magnetic field’s interaction with the solar wind. Heavy positive ions from the solar wind crash through the magnetic field bubble, while lighter electrons are diverted around it. This separation of positive charges from negative ones generates an electric field directed outward from the magnetic anomaly”
To me this is part of the EU, as EU states there is more to electromagnetism then it was accepted until now in astronomy. And here you see electromagnetism affecting the surface of the moon.
The difference in mass between the ‘+’ and the ‘-‘ ensures they behave differently, not symmetrically which can create potentials and currents.
All space scientists know this and use this paradigm every day. You see, something has to drive a current, it is called the emf [the electromotive force]. In the EU there is no emf, currents happen by miracle.
currents do not happen by miracle, this is a straw man.
Most of EU papers what I found are published at IEEE by people who are electrical engineers or have at least the knowledge.
The “consensus” who do work in the area, avoid the terminology of talking about currents to be consensus conform. Magnetic reconnect is an aberration in itself, the magnetic lines do not exist in reality as such, there is only a magnetic field that exists like the electric field. Electric field lines do not “reconnect” even if we have here two different charges. There is no magnetic charge as such. Only electric charges.
Not studying the currents hinders the progress, making it difficult to understand the phenomenon. You need there currents and voltage to achieve “magnetic reconnect”
http://electric-cosmos.org/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
The plasma is a superconductor on large length scales
no, very good conductibility but not zero resistance.
but certainly not on the micro-scale.
yes, not on the micro and not on the macro scale.
Nobody who knows anything about space physics are claiming it is.
they should not, but some claim it is on the macro scale.
When you say that a lot of EU is nonsense, then you are akin with the people, who when it is demonstrated that spoon-bender Uri Geller has been caught cheating 50% of the time, say “so what? the other 50% is the real thing”.
when you claim you are 100% right then even when you are 99.99% right, you are still wrong.
Just curious what would you do if in 10 to 20 years dark matter will not be needed to explain the movement of the stars in the galaxy and this will be possible to explain through the electromagnetic force?
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/ukdmc/dark_matter/rotation_curves.html
Lars P. says:
March 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm
“The key, says Ruth Bamford of Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in England, is that an electric field is generated by the magnetic field’s interaction with the solar wind.”
This, unfortunately is not EU, but mainstream science. Note that the electric field is generated by the plasma moving across an existing magnetic field. As Alfven was at pains to point out, electric fields depend on the observer [magnetic fields do not]. You can always find another observer for whom what is an electric field to you there is no electric field for him. It is the magnetic field that allows separation of charges which in turn allows an electric current to flow.
Try to find another example of where EU can amend real science.
You need the currents and voltage to achieve “magnetic reconnect”
The necessary current is generated by pressing the two parcels of plasma with opposite magnetic fields together just as Bamfield said in your quote above.
currents do not happen by miracle, this is a straw man.
Then how in EU are currents generated?
Lars P. says:
March 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm
here you see electromagnetism affecting the surface of the moon.
Electromagnetic waves [UV light] affects my skin every time I get sunburned…No electric shocks though…
Just curious what would you do if in 10 to 20 years dark matter will not be needed to explain the movement of the stars in the galaxy and this will be possible to explain through the electromagnetic force?
Although the rotation curves were the first signs of dark matter, the best and most direct is observations of gravitational lensing and I would indeed be surprised if that can be explained by electromagnetic forces, so please, surprise and educate me.
As for explanations, it is good to remember that for the first billion years of the existence of the Universe [excluding the fist 379,000 years], there was no plasma between the stars and galaxies.
lsvalgaard says:
March 12, 2013 at 1:20 pm
This, unfortunately is not EU, but mainstream science. Note that the electric field is generated by the plasma moving across an existing magnetic field.
This is part of EU already taken into the mainstream science. There is no such separation as: magnetic field generates current=mainstream, current generates magnetic field=EU.
As each person that understands electromagnetism knows there is bidirectional transformation.
As Alfven was at pains to point out, electric fields depend on the observer [magnetic fields do not]. You can always find another observer for whom what is an electric field to you there is no electric field for him. It is the magnetic field that allows separation of charges which in turn allows an electric current to flow.
Did anybody try to make “magnetic reconnect” without electrical charges? Why not? Well, because this will never work. Why? Are there not the magnetic lines there? Spin them up, break the magnets, put them against a stronger opposite magnet. No reconnect? Without electrical charges in movement there is no “reconnect”.
And what are electrical charges in movement?
Of course electrical currents generate magnetic fields and magnetic fields generate currents:
“Maxwell’s equations describe how electric and magnetic fields are generated and altered by each other and by charges and currents.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_law_for_magnetism
” magnetic monopoles do not exist”
Further:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction#Faraday.27s_law
“The Maxwell–Faraday equation is a generalisation of Faraday’s law that states that a time-varying magnetic field is always accompanied by a spatially-varying, non-conservative electric field, and vice-versa.”
The universe is full of movement of charged and non-charged particles. How do the charged particles move? Do they generate electric fields like in the case above? Yes. Does this generate electrical currents? Yes. Do these currents generate magnetic fields? Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
“Birkeland proposed in 1908 in his book The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903[6] that polar electric currents, today referred to as auroral electrojets, were connected to a system of currents that flowed along geomagnetic field lines into and away from the polar region.”
No magnetic reconnection…
“Proof of Birkeland’s theory of the aurora only came in 1967 after a probe was sent into space. The crucial results were obtained from U.S. Navy satellite 1963-38C, launched in 1963 and carrying a magnetometer above the ionosphere.[10] Magnetic disturbances were observed on nearly every pass over the high-latitude regions of the Earth. These were originally interpreted as hydromagnetic waves, but on later analysis it was realized that they were due to field-aligned or Birkeland currents.”
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/science/jupiter_magnetosphere.html
“An electric current of 5 million amperes was detected in the flux tube that flows between Jupiter and Io, five times stronger than predicted.”
Well, and yes, I agree that there must be a source for electrical currents, there must be a phenomenon that generates it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter%27s_magnetosphere
And magnetic fields by currents:
“Jupiter’s internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents in the planet’s outer core, which is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen”
lsvalgaard says:
March 12, 2013 at 2:47 pm
so please, surprise and educate me.
I am far away to pretend I can do that. Was just asking ad absurdum what would be your reaction.
Lars P. says:
March 12, 2013 at 3:29 pm
This is part of EU already taken into the mainstream science.
This was mainstream long before the EU cult.
Did anybody try to make “magnetic reconnect” without electrical charges? Why not?
Twirl a toy magnet in the air and there is continuous reconnection. Reconnection is just another name for a change in topology [the configuration of the magnetic field]. Now, in a plasma you cannot change the magnetic field, unless you do serious mechanical work on it which generates the currents needed.
“Maxwell’s equations, etc …
All of this is regurgitating mainstream science…
“Birkeland proposed in 1908 in his book The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903[6] that polar electric currents, today referred to as auroral electrojets, were connected to a system of currents that flowed along geomagnetic field lines into and away from the polar region.”
I thought you said that magnetic field lines do not exist…
“Jupiter’s internal magnetic field is generated by electrical currents in the planet’s outer core, which is composed of liquid metallic hydrogen”
Jupiter’s, the Earth’s, the Sun’s, everything’s magnetic field is generated by electric current created by what is called a dynamo: moving a conductor across an existing magnetic field. No magnetic field, no currents.
But all this is mainstream science established long before EU. You have not mentioned a single thing that is unique to EU, such as powering the Sun, for example. Come on, show that you have done some homework.
Lars P. says:
March 12, 2013 at 3:47 pm
“so please, surprise and educate me.”
I am far away to pretend I can do that.
Then take the opportunity of these exchanges to actually learn some real science.
lsvalgaard says:
March 12, 2013 at 3:51 pm
But all this is mainstream science established long before EU. You have not mentioned a single thing that is unique to EU, such as powering the Sun, for example. Come on, show that you have done some homework.
sorry Leif, I understand electromagnetismus as mainstream science and this is the base of EU. It looks like we speak of two different EU, so no use to continue. You try to force all that is EU in your comfortable corner where you find the fringe theories.
If you believe magnetic fields exist there since somebody put them frozen-in in plasma and this is the only way how currents are generated in space you are free to believe that.
Lars P. says:
March 12, 2013 at 4:23 pm
this is the only way how currents are generated in space you are free to believe that.
This is what valid science believes today. If you know about any other way, it would be of interest to hear about, otherwise, I agree, it is no use to continue. [There is, in fact, a very interesting and valid question: if magnetism is necessary for the generation and maintenance of currents in plasmas, where did the very first magnetic field come from? It is thought that gravity combined with rotation is the ultimate cause, but that is another discussion: the Biermann Battery Effect: http://www.as.utexas.edu/~lindner/random/final.pdf ]
lsvalgaard says:
March 12, 2013 at 4:54 pm
This is what valid science believes today. If you know about any other way, it would be of interest to hear about, otherwise, I agree, it is no use to continue. [There is, in fact, a very interesting and valid question: if magnetism is necessary for the generation and maintenance of currents in plasmas, where did the very first magnetic field come from? It is thought that gravity combined with rotation is the ultimate cause, but that is another discussion: the Biermann Battery Effect: http://www.as.utexas.edu/~lindner/random/final.pdf ]
Leif, this is for me a very interesting logic: you are ok with frozen-in magnetic fields which cannot be explained, you do not know where these come from, but you feverishly combat any electrical currents which are the only way how we know magnetic fields can be created?
Jupiter’s, the Earth’s, the Sun’s, everything’s magnetic field is generated by electric current created by what is called a dynamo: moving a conductor across an existing magnetic field. No magnetic field, no currents.
What existing magnetic field is used to generate Jupiter’s magnetic field? Or the Sun’s?
Have you not understood yet the magnetic coil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_hand_grip_rule#Direction_associated_with_a_rotation
No magnetic field no currents? If protons move from A to B is this not generating a magnetic field according to who’s theory? If protons or charged particles move in a vortex this is not generating a magnetic field in mainstream science?
Can there be no reason or no cases when charges are separated?
Or is this a frozen-in magnetic field in a superconductor hidden in the middle of the planet and the sun? Is this the “mainstream” theory?
You try to explain the generation through gravity with rotation but negate there might be electrical currents? Wish you all the luck to explain that with uncharged particles. And if there is rotation of electrical charged particles, no, this is no current, no plasma, this must be ionised gas which is electrical neutral? Or what?
Hiding behind the finger, just not to say the thing by the name: electrical current. Incredible.
The link from your post above says it too: “It is essential that we comprehend the origin and evolution of these magnetic fields if we wish to understand early structure formation in the universe.”
But it is not for the early structure formation. It is an integral part of the universe:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2010-417&rn=news.xml&rst=2847
“We all know that changing rotation periods have been observed at pulsars, millions of light years from our solar system, and now we find that a similar phenomenon is observed right here at Saturn,” said Tom Krimigis, principal investigator of the magnetospheric imaging instrument, also based at the Applied Physics Laboratory and the Academy of Athens, Greece. “With instruments right at the spot where it’s happening, we can tell that plasma flows and complex current systems can mask the real rotation period of the central body. That’s how observations in our solar system help us understand what is seen in distant astrophysical objects.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter%27s_magnetosphere
“Jupiter’s radio and particle emissions are strongly modulated by its rotation, which makes the planet somewhat similar to a pulsar.[55] This periodical modulation is probably related to asymmetries in the Jovian magnetosphere, which are caused by the tilt of the magnetic moment with respect to the rotational axis as well as by high-latitude magnetic anomalies. The physics governing Jupiter’s radio emissions is similar to that of radio pulsars. They differ only in the scale, and Jupiter can be considered a very small radio pulsar too.“
Lars P. says:
March 13, 2013 at 12:53 pm
you are ok with frozen-in magnetic fields which cannot be explained, you do not know where these come from
We know quite well where the frozen-in fields come from [even if you may not know that].
What existing magnetic field is used to generate Jupiter’s magnetic field? Or the Sun’s?
Movement of neutral plasma [all natural plasma is electrically neutral – having equal number of negative and positive charges] in Jupiter’s, the Earth’s, and the Sun’s magnetic fields generate electric currents that in turn maintain the magnetic field ready to generate more current, and so forth. This is called a ‘self-sustaining dynamo’.
Can there be no reason or no cases when charges are separated?
Magnetic fields separate charges and induces electric currents.
The link from your post above says it too: “It is essential that we comprehend the origin and evolution of these magnetic fields if we wish to understand early structure formation in the universe.”
But also shoiws how to generate that ‘seed’ field from gravity and vorticity alone.
That’s how observations in our solar system help us understand what is seen in distant astrophysical objects
All of that is standard astronomical mainstream science. EU brings nothing to the table.
The real issue is very simple: all interesting things are caused by electric currents [or gravity], so how are such currents generated? Real science says by conductors moving across magnetic fields. EU says by magic. So here is a specific questions: how are the electric currents in EU generated and maintained? Remember that an electric current is charges going from an excess of charge to a deficit. This eventually reduces the excess to zero and stops the current.
lsvalgaard says:
March 13, 2013 at 6:21 pm
We know quite well where the frozen-in fields come from [even if you may not know that].
Thanks, now I am convinced.
Movement of neutral plasma [all natural plasma is electrically neutral – having equal number of negative and positive charges] in Jupiter’s, the Earth’s, and the Sun’s magnetic fields generate electric currents that in turn maintain the magnetic field ready to generate more current, and so forth. This is called a ‘self-sustaining dynamo’.
You answered your own question from below how currents are generated.
Magnetic fields separate charges and induces electric currents.
Yes. But magnetic fields do not come out of nowhere, unless in Leif’s mainstream universe.
But also shoiws how to generate that ‘seed’ field from gravity and vorticity alone.
correct
All of that is standard astronomical mainstream science. EU brings nothing to the table.
Again, possibly you think EU is a patent of somebody. To my knowledge that is not the case. Your crusade against a person or a theory has nothing to do with the relevance of electrical currents in space. EU brings currents in space, the idea that electricity plays a larger role and that astronomy is not only ruled by gravity how it was initially thought. This is what EU stands for.
The real issue is very simple: all interesting things are caused by electric currents [or gravity], so how are such currents generated? Real science says by conductors moving across magnetic fields. EU says by magic. So here is a specific questions: how are the electric currents in EU generated and maintained? Remember that an electric current is charges going from an excess of charge to a deficit. This eventually reduces the excess to zero and stops the current.
You answered your question above. There is no magic in science only in a figurative way. There is more to electricity then was initially thought. How are pulsars explained before electricity?
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/p/pulsar
“Radio pulsars are generally accepted to be highly-magnetised, rapidly rotating neutron stars with a light-house beam of radiation that produces the pulsed emission. Although the majority of pulsars spin at a rate of about once per second, the fastest pulsars can rotate at up to ~650 times a second, and anything spinning faster than around 50 milliseconds is generally referred to as a millisecond pulsar.”
What do we find out in our own solar system? “plasma flows and complex current systems can mask the real rotation period of the central body.”
“The physics governing Jupiter’s radio emissions is similar to that of radio pulsars. They differ only in the scale, and Jupiter can be considered a very small radio pulsar too.”
Understanding the electric phenomenon is essential to understand how pulsars work, and what pulsars are.
All of that is standard astronomical mainstream science. EU brings nothing to the table.
Standard astronomy goes EU, step by step, recognizing electrical currents in space and starting to understand how these work. A bit too slow to my taste, but that’s a different story.
Lars P. says:
March 14, 2013 at 4:04 am
“We know quite well where the frozen-in fields come from [even if you may not know that].”
Thanks, now I am convinced.
Good. It has taken some time for you to turn around. Hannes Alfven got his Nobel Prize for explaining how, and also pointed out that when the fields thaws interesting things happen.
You answered your own question from below how currents are generated.
So you agree that currents are generated from magnetic fields. No field, no currents.
Yes. But magnetic fields do not come out of nowhere, unless in Leif’s mainstream universe.
Large-scale magnetic fields in the Universe were generated shortly after the Big Bang [gravity+vorticity] and have been with us ever since as the paper explains.
EU brings currents in space, the idea that electricity plays a larger role and that astronomy is not only ruled by gravity how it was initially thought. This is what EU stands for.
As I have said, everything interesting happens due to electric currents [or gravity] generated from magnetic fields. This is mainstream science. Nothing new there.
There is more to electricity then was initially thought.
Maxwell’s equations [from the 1860s] describe what we know about electricity. EU does not add anything to that.
How are pulsars explained before electricity?
“Radio pulsars are generally accepted to be highly-magnetised, rapidly rotating neutron stars
Pulsars were not discovered before electricity was. But that aside, in pulsars “The beam originates from the rotational energy of the neutron star, which generates an electrical field from the movement of the very strong magnetic field. No magnetic field, no electric field, no beam, no pulsar.
Standard astronomy goes EU, step by step, recognizing electrical currents in space and starting to understand how these work. A bit too slow to my taste, but that’s a different story.
Standard astronomy has recognized electric currents in space ever since it was discovered that there were magnetic fields out there. The difference with EU, is that standard theory explains where the currents come from [moving neutral plasma in magnetic fields], while EU does not. So, again: where do the currents come from in EU? You have consistently evaded, ignored, [not known] how to answer. Here is your chance. Carpe diem.
Leif Svalgaard says:
March 14, 2013 at 8:32 am
Lars P. says:
March 14, 2013 at 4:04 am
“We know quite well where the frozen-in fields come from [even if you may not know that].”
Thanks, now I am convinced.
Good. It has taken some time for you to turn around. Hannes Alfven got his Nobel Prize for explaining how, and also pointed out that when the fields thaws interesting things happen.
Dear Leif, however I must conclude that you have not read his Nobel prize lecture. You can find it here:
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.html
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf
” I think it is evident now that in certain respects the first approach to the physics of cosmical plasmas has been a failure. It turns out that in several important cases this approach has not given even a first approximation to truth but led into dead-end streets from which we now have to turn back.
The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are « generally accepted » by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not « understand », how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach
from widely different starting points.
The two different approaches can be summarized in Table 1.”
Look at the table 1:
– not homogene as you say but “Space plasmas have often a complicated inhomogeneous structure”
– not conductivity o = co Electric fieldE,, = o
but u depends on current and often suddenly becomes o, E,, often #o”
– magnetic fields: “Frozen-in picture often completely mis-leading.”
It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit.
Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low density plasmas.
Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets
Theories still not very well developed and partly phenomenological
Where are we now 40+ years later? Leif still tells plasma is homogene, with infinite conductivity and with frozen-in magnetic fields and so on, still blocked in the plasma cosmology of before 40 years ago.
You have consistently evaded, ignored, [not known] how to answer. Here is your chance. Carpe diem.
I have answered this to you several times.
You still are looking for the key under the lamp (you know the joke with the drunkman looking for the key under the lamp? after some search at the question: but did you lose it here? the answer comes:no, but here I have light to look for it) and not there where I showed it to you it is, so what can I say more?
Large-scale magnetic fields in the Universe were generated shortly after the Big Bang [gravity+vorticity] and have been with us ever since as the paper explains.
and how did gravity and vorticity created magnetic fields?
> Keith says:
> March 7, 2013 at 8:16 am
> So if you cant get a “real” point, a singularity is perhaps a point tooo far.
Leif replied:
> The singularity in a black hole is not a point. The volume of a black hole is the surface area of its
> event horizon times the length of time the hole exists. [you multiply the time by the speed of light
> to get that length]. Since the hole lasts forever [practically] its volume is for all intents and
> purposes infinite. You can pour stuff into a black hole forever without filling it up.
And you wrote that without a hint of skepticism? That is why I cannot believe a single thing you have said. You loose your credibility, because you accept such things without question. You did not even state it as a remote possibility, or any puzzlement as to how this could be possible in reality, you stated it as an unassailable fact. Which basically shows you up for what I said earlier, your view is now synonymous with a religious doctrine, and you have effectively set yourself up to be self-deluded. I conclude this by the way you present yourself.
In science, only one observation is all it takes to destroy a previously held paradigm. Therefore I expect to see a lot more humility from those who profess to be scientists, knowing that they are one observation away from being proven wrong.
Just because a mathematical equation says it, you expect me to believe that is real? Actually the model upon which all this is based, is based on modelling a single mass as if at a point. The universe is not made of single point masses, nor does mass really have any meaning unless there are two or more.
K.
keith says:
March 14, 2013 at 10:23 am
“The singularity in a black hole is not a point.”
And you wrote that without a hint of skepticism?
you stated it as an unassailable fact.
In science, only one observation is all it takes to destroy a previously held paradigm.
A paradigm is the summary of thousands, millions, gazilions of observations. General Relativity is such a paradigm [it is tested every time you use GPS – for example]. To date, there is not a single observation or experiment that contradicts GR on macroscopic scales. A large part of modern physics is concerned with proving Einstein wrong. so far without success. This is why we accept those conclusions as fact consistent with all we know. Of course, if you don’t know anything, then you don’t have to go along.
Earlier you said:
keith says:
March 5, 2013 at 1:23 pm
So the EU guys have it right.
you stated it as an unassailable fact without a hint of skepticism…