PDA

View Full Version : Electric "Brown Dwarfs"



Northwind
2007-May-24, 02:25 AM
From UT LINK (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2007/pr-24-07.html)



Jets of matter have been discovered around a very low mass 'failed star', mimicking a process seen in young stars. This suggests that these 'brown dwarfs' form in a similar manner to normal stars but also that outflows are driven out by objects as massive as hundreds of millions of solar masses down to Jupiter-sized objects.

And


Outflows are ubiquitous in the Universe, as they are observed rushing away from the active nuclei of galaxies - AGNs - but also emerging from young stars. The present observations show they even arise in still lower mass objects. The outflow mechanism is thus very robust over an enormous range of masses, from several tens of millions of solar mass (for AGNs) down to a few tens of Jupiter masses (for brown dwarfs).

My bold



I would have asked this in the Q&A forum but would end up here anyway, So I'll preempt our more senoir members, and start the thread here.

So my question is, mainstream (gravity centric) model explains it how? remember the range of masses involved here!

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-May-24, 02:41 AM
Northwind, not everything in the universe is due to gravity like not everything is due to electric forces. The Universe is runs of a combination of the four forces the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity. This effect like electric Io maybe due electricmagnetic forces but it does not mean everything in the Universe is due electromagnetism. Your reasoning is if A caused B then A must also cause C which is incorrect.

Northwind
2007-May-24, 03:43 AM
Northwind, not everything in the universe is due to gravity like not everything is due to electric forces. The Universe is runs of a combination of the four forces the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity. This effect like electric Io maybe due electricmagnetic forces but it does not mean everything in the Universe is due electromagnetism. Your reasoning is if A caused B then A must also cause C which is incorrect.

You are correct Davidlpf, so how does a galaxy and a brown dwarf do this?

and in the small print down the bottom of the page from the link


The forbidden emission lines found in the spectra of some young brown dwarfs were a strong indication of outflow activity. However the regions were not extended and therefore that they originated in an outflow could not be directly confirmed. Using spectro-astrometry the astronomers were able to show that the line regions were shifted by small amounts with respect to the brown dwarf continuum (shifts were small relative to the seeing) and therefore were indeed tracing an outflow

and from wiki


Forbidden emission lines have only been observed in extremely low-density gases and plasmas, either in outer space or in the extreme upper atmosphere of the Earth. Even the hardest laboratory vacuum on Earth is still too dense for forbidden line emission to occur before atoms are collisionally de-excited. However, in space environments, densities may be only a few atoms per cubic centimetre, making atomic collisions unlikely. Under such conditions, forbidden line transitions may account for a significant percentage of the photons emitted. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_line) My bold

Fair to say EM is the dominate force at play here, Davidlpf?

tusenfem
2007-May-24, 04:46 AM
Usually beams emanating from central objects, like in the case with a black hole and an accretion disk around it, are "driven" by magnetic fields that get wound up and stick out of the central objects along the rotational axis. In this case it is a brown dwarf, with still part of a protostellar disk around it, with all the dynamics that happens in such a disk. There is turbulence in such a disk, creating magnetic fields in it, whcih can escape through buoyancy and because the disk rotates, the magnetic fields get wound up. And plasma can get shot out along these wound up fields (a rather simplified explanation).

The presence of forbidden lines, that is spectral lines created by electrons skipping from one shell in an ion to another, for which the probability is very low. Not all shell changes are allowed, because sometimes some quantum numbers will change in a fashion that is not allowed.
This means that there are very few collisions, fewer that the characteristic time for such a forbidden skip to take place, basically the inverse of the chance. This is a completely quantum mechanic process. And therefore the conclusion that EM is the dominating force is incorrect.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-May-24, 04:52 AM
Usually beams emanating from central objects, like in the case with a black hole and an accretion disk around it, are "driven" by magnetic fields that get wound up and stick out of the central objects along the rotational axis. In this case it is a brown dwarf, with still part of a protostellar disk around it, with all the dynamics that happens in such a disk. There is turbulence in such a disk, creating magnetic fields in it, whcih can escape through buoyancy and because the disk rotates, the magnetic fields get wound up. And plasma can get shot out along these wound up fields (a rather simplified explanation).


Thanks for answering that I was pretty sure that was the answer but not 100 % sure, and you put it a lot better then I would.

Northwind
2007-May-24, 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Usually beams emanating from central objects, like in the case with a black hole and an accretion disk around it, are "driven" by magnetic fields that get wound up and stick out of the central objects along the rotational axis. In this case it is a brown dwarf, with still part of a protostellar disk around it, with all the dynamics that happens in such a disk. There is turbulence in such a disk, creating magnetic fields in it, whcih can escape through buoyancy and because the disk rotates, the magnetic fields get wound up. And plasma can get shot out along these wound up fields (a rather simplified explanation).

Thanks for answering that I was pretty sure that was the answer but not 100 % sure, and you put it a lot better then I would

:clap:

So turbulence is a magnetic field generator? Please explain :shifty: No maths needed, word salad will do.

Escape through buoyancy? :eh: And into "jets"? :hand:

And spinning, wound up magnetic fields :eh: last time I read about this effect, was in the Jovian system....you know Io :doh: Something about 5 billion amps or some nonesense :shifty:

I predict some very ad hoc explanations coming up! and the one theory that seamlessly integrates this "surprise" is utter taboo here, even in the ATM section :sick:

Gillianren
2007-May-24, 06:46 AM
I predict some very ad hoc explanations coming up! and the one theory that seamlessly integrates this "surprise" is utter taboo here, even in the ATM section :sick:

I have officially had it with that particular line. It's not taboo. If someone came up with a real, reasonable model of the EU--with math!--we'd take it seriously. However, no one ever has. They've had decades to do it, and no one ever has. Whose fault is that?

tusenfem
2007-May-24, 07:23 AM
So turbulence is a magnetic field generator? Please explain No maths needed, word salad will do.

Escape through buoyancy? And into "jets"?

And spinning, wound up magnetic fields last time I read about this effect, was in the Jovian system....you know Io Something about 5 billion amps or some nonesense

I predict some very ad hoc explanations coming up! and the one theory that seamlessly integrates this "surprise" is utter taboo here, even in the ATM section

Quit it with the smileys Northwind you are starting to come back into your old persona again.

You really want to have an explanation? Okay you can have it, but I doubt you will like it or understand it.

A disk around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies in the plasma). There are ALWAYS small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this) in the plasma and these create small magnetic loops. Now, normally these loops will shrink because the current dissipates, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded back on itself (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). This is dynamo action, part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents).
Now as the magnetic field increases, the magnetic pressure (proportional to the square of the magnetic field) increases. With the plasma in pressure equilibrium, this means that in that magnetic loop the plasma pressure (dependent on temperature and density) must decrease. As the plasma is in temperature balance, this means that the density must decrease in the loop. Thus the loop becomes lighter than its surroundings, and thus buoyant. This is the same if you put a closed off empty plastic bottle into water, if it is totally submerged it will have an upward force, the one we know as the Archimedean force. (a body wholly or partly emerged in a fluid or gas will experience an upward force proportional to the mass of the displaced fluid or gass).
So, the magnetic loops rise and break through the surface of the disk and can extend upward creating what looks like coronal loops on the sun. These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Now this whole stuff has completely NOTHING to do with the situation at Io, but I doubt you will understand that. At Io there is a strong magnetic field just passing by the moon and generating Alfven wings which carry currents. This is something completely different, although the same Maxwell equations are used. There are no wound up magnetic fields in the Jovian magnetosphere. And it is no nonsense about the millions of amps that flow through the Io flux tube, because it has been measured, but you would not know about that, would you now?

What is sickening :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: :sick: is your bickering with Oh, mainstream does not believe in electrical currents and other nonsense like Oh, a plasma is neutral, that means it cannot have any currents (according to mainstream). I should force you to read several of my papers dealing totally with electric currents, specifically stating that there are currents flowing and which have been published in mainstream journals. Isn't that strange, that I get published in mainstream journals while mentioning currents and electricity? Something must be wrong, it is possibly my connections to the PeeTayBees that have loads of money and that buy off the referees into accepting my papers. The one theory that seamlessly integrates the "surprise" as you say, has been invoked all along, already for over 15 years in the explanation of this jet phenomenon, and it is the dynamics of magnetic fields (AND THUS CURRENTS) in the plasma surrounding the object.

I hope this was enough wordsalat for you, Northwind, (or Sol or Magman or what ever you wanna call yourself)

The following papers of mine will be of interest to you, mentioning specifically currents in astrophysical plasmas:

Volwerk et al., Magnetic flares near accreting black holes, Astronomy and Astrophysics 270, 265-274, 1993
Benz et al., Particle acceleration in flares, Solar Physics 153, 33-53, 1993
Volwerk & Kuijpers, Strong double layers, exisitence criteria and annihilation: An application to solar flared, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 90, 589-593, 1994
Volwerk et al., Solitary kinetic Alfven waves: A study of the Poynting flux, Journal Geophysical Research 101, 13335-13343, 1996
Chust et al., Electric fields with large parallel component observed by the Freja spacecraft: Artifacts or real signals? Journal Geophysical Research 103, 215-224, 1998.
Volwerk et al., Europa's Alfven wing: Shrinkage and displacement influenced by an induced magnetic field, Annales Geophysicae 25, 905-914, 2007

I think this will suffice, I have let out the papers dealing with the Earth's magnetotail current sheet.

Northwind
2007-May-24, 07:35 AM
I have officially had it with that particular line. It's not taboo. If someone came up with a real, reasonable model of the EU--with math!--we'd take it seriously. However, no one ever has. They've had decades to do it, and no one ever has. Whose fault is that?

So sorry Gillianren, but you can not hide behind maths on this one!

You know those pesky magnetic fields mainstream talk about? where is the other half of Ampère's Circuital law or Faraday's law of induction LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)

The LAW (and in mathematical equation too) states one MUST have the other, must must must, unequivocally MUST have both. You can not have a cosmic magnetic field without invoking a cosmic electric field! :doh:

And mainstream goes on and on about magnetic fields, so where is the associated electric field? not a word mentioned! is it not important?

I'd say EU or not, but mathematicians are going to have a real hard time getting their equation to "fit" observations!

But you/we do have Maxwells (see link above) to work from, do the maths on a cosmic magnetic field and see what electrical power it can produce and vice a versa!

So you should be able to work out one or the other from one or the other? Easy :whistle:

And magnetic fields are HUGE like this
Hunting for magnetic energy in intergalactic space, researchers have found an unexpected motherlode of it. Both in the gaps between galaxies that are clustered and in the lonelier neighborhoods outside those clusters, magnetic fields are remarkably strong, a scientific team reports. LINK (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000506/fob5.asp)

And further down
That tells us there's significant energy in space contained in the [intergalactic] magnetic fields," he says.

"I'm surprised, very surprised," says Russell M. Kulsrud of Princeton University, adding that he harbors some doubts that the strengths "are quite as high as [Kronberg] said." But even if the field strengths are a bit smaller, he adds, "they are still . . . very difficult to explain."

Surprised!!! :doh: really

Very difficult to explain :rolleyes:


Calling both sets of findings "very intriguing," Eugene N. Parker of the University of Chicago insists they offer no easy answers about the origins and influences of cosmic magnetic fields. Rather, he says, they are "a warning flag" indicating that scientists don't really understand how magnetic fields work.

So Gillianren, I have officially had it with that particular line, "I'm surprised, very surprised" and "difficult to explain" because the EU has consistently predicted these findings!

I see mainstream has absolutely no idea, or they would not be surprised, because we see it in their press releases all the time.

Your court

Northwind
2007-May-24, 07:57 AM
And most probably to Tusenfem's horror, HANNES ALFVÉN had this to say all those years ago
Other Scientific Contributions
Some of Alfvén’s scientific contributions were never generally recognized.
For example, in his early study of cosmic rays, Alfvén was the first
to postulate that there must exist a
galactic magnetic field.
This proposal
was generally dismissed, because space was considered to be a
vacuum, so there was no plasma present that could possibly carry the
electric current needed to generate a magnetic field. It is now well established
that the galaxy contains the needed plasma and that the galactic
magnetic field does exist, but it is not recognized that it was Alfvén’s
original proposal. LINK (http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf) Scroll to page 12

He was on to it 40 years ago, and all the new technology and data has proven him correct!

And "mainstream" are still surprised <shakes head in total disbelief>

Gillianren
2007-May-24, 08:54 AM
He was on to it 40 years ago, and all the new technology and data has proven him correct!

Can you show that quantitatively?

No?

Gosh, now, that's surprising. After all, your crowd have by your own admission had 40 years to work it out, and none of you have.

Van Rijn
2007-May-24, 09:33 AM
It seems tusenfem answered to OP question. If anyone wants see where EU has been talked about nearly endlessly, see here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=28596

If anyone wants to ask real questions (not just ask questions as a lead-in to whine again about EU), go to Q&A. Now, is anyone actually going to provide a new ATM proposal in this thread? Remember, we will ask questions and you will be expected to answer questions about it.

Northwind
2007-May-24, 12:01 PM
First to Gillianren, Meh :eh:

And then to Tusenfem, what happened, that post was light years ahead of your others regarding this subject. Excellent :)

I'd like to, when I get a bit of time, is go through a few things with you on your explanation.

first
A disk around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies in the plasma). There are ALWAYS small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this) in the plasma and these create small magnetic loops.

I'll reword if I may just for fun this sentence

A Torus of dusty plasma around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies, along with double layers and regions of charge separation in the plasma). There are ALWAYS large and small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this (you have now)) in the plasma and these create large/small magnetic loops, which in turn influence the remaining dusty plasma along with passive and active plasmas.

and


Now, normally these loops will shrink because the current dissipates, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded back on itself (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). This is dynamo action, part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents).

Now, normally these loops will shrink/grow because the current dissipates/increases, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo or Faradays law of induction. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded and moved against a magnetic field, back on itself, generating a current further energizing the system (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). as the current it produce's self organize into filaments and Birkeland currents

This is dynamo action of turbulent magnetic fields which twist, fold and move against part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents/generate more magnetic fields and further make the system dynamic and hard to predict).

and


Now as the magnetic field increases, the magnetic pressure (proportional to the square of the magnetic field) increases. With the plasma in pressure equilibrium, this means that in that magnetic loop the plasma pressure (dependent on temperature and density) must decrease. As the plasma is in temperature balance, this means that the density must decrease in the loop. Thus the loop becomes lighter than its surroundings, and thus buoyant. This is the same if you put a closed off empty plastic bottle into water, if it is totally submerged it will have an upward force, the one we know as the Archimedean force. (a body wholly or partly emerged in a fluid or gas will experience an upward force proportional to the mass of the displaced fluid or gass).

Little confused here as I would assume being more bouyant would imply a down and an up? So wich way would be up?

So I would say the increased magnetic "pressure" would form double layers and plasma instabilities that are looking for electrical equilibrium not "pressure" equilibrium.

and


So, the magnetic loops rise and break through the surface of the disk and can extend upward creating what looks like coronal loops on the sun. These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

So, the magnetic loops/double layers try and seek equilibrium through charge exchange in the process recombining and compressing matter between the Birkeland currents.

These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Ya loose me a bit there at the end, but on the whole I can nearly agree on what you wrote :shifty:

So I'll have another read tomorrow at work (I'm tired now, work sucks) and see what else "fits"

korjik
2007-May-24, 04:04 PM
So sorry Gillianren, but you can not hide behind maths on this one!

You know those pesky magnetic fields mainstream talk about? where is the other half of Ampère's Circuital law or Faraday's law of induction LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)

The LAW (and in mathematical equation too) states one MUST have the other, must must must, unequivocally MUST have both. You can not have a cosmic magnetic field without invoking a cosmic electric field! :doh:

And mainstream goes on and on about magnetic fields, so where is the associated electric field? not a word mentioned! is it not important?

I'd say EU or not, but mathematicians are going to have a real hard time getting their equation to "fit" observations!

But you/we do have Maxwells (see link above) to work from, do the maths on a cosmic magnetic field and see what electrical power it can produce and vice a versa!

So you should be able to work out one or the other from one or the other? Easy :whistle:

And magnetic fields are HUGE like this LINK (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000506/fob5.asp)

And further down

Surprised!!! :doh: really

Very difficult to explain :rolleyes:



So Gillianren, I have officially had it with that particular line, "I'm surprised, very surprised" and "difficult to explain" because the EU has consistently predicted these findings!

I see mainstream has absolutely no idea, or they would not be surprised, because we see it in their press releases all the time.

Your court

EEEEEEENNNT!! Wrong.

Lets actually look at Maxwells equations

Divergence E= charge density
Divergence B= 0
Curl E= -dB/dt
Curl B= mu0 J + dE/dt

Curl E: This says a changing magnetic field causes an electric field. so, currents are generally caused when the field changes.

Curl B: This says that magnetic fields are caused by currents, or changing electric fields. If there are no electric fields to start (there will be later, making all sorts of other effects) Then the field is made by a current. The most common current is caused by an electric field, but not all. Plasma [i]gravitationally[i] orbiting will cause a current, therefore making a field.

korjik
2007-May-24, 04:08 PM
First to Gillianren, Meh :eh:

And then to Tusenfem, what happened, that post was light years ahead of your others regarding this subject. Excellent :)

I'd like to, when I get a bit of time, is go through a few things with you on your explanation.

first

I'll reword if I may just for fun this sentence

A Torus of dusty plasma around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies, along with double layers and regions of charge separation in the plasma). There are ALWAYS large and small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this (you have now)) in the plasma and these create large/small magnetic loops, which in turn influence the remaining dusty plasma along with passive and active plasmas.

and



Now, normally these loops will shrink/grow because the current dissipates/increases, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo or Faradays law of induction. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded and moved against a magnetic field, back on itself, generating a current further energizing the system (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). as the current it produce's self organize into filaments and Birkeland currents

This is dynamo action of turbulent magnetic fields which twist, fold and move against part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents/generate more magnetic fields and further make the system dynamic and hard to predict).

and



Little confused here as I would assume being more bouyant would imply a down and an up? So wich way would be up?

So I would say the increased magnetic "pressure" would form double layers and plasma instabilities that are looking for electrical equilibrium not "pressure" equilibrium.

and

And again you would be wrong. If you knew what boyancy was, this would be obvious. Taking a cross section through the disk, you have vaccum above and below the disk, and some pressure higher than vaccum in the center of the disk. The pressure will fall from center to edge, leading to a pressure gradient, leading to boyancy. We would take you much more seriously if you would at least try to understand freshman physics.


So, the magnetic loops/double layers try and seek equilibrium through charge exchange in the process recombining and compressing matter between the Birkeland currents.

These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Ya loose me a bit there at the end, but on the whole I can nearly agree on what you wrote :shifty:

So I'll have another read tomorrow at work (I'm tired now, work sucks) and see what else "fits"

Try learning physics first

captain swoop
2007-May-24, 04:11 PM
I see Northwind has started his thread again.

Nereid
2007-May-24, 05:28 PM
Northwind, EnoughDarkStuff: what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?

nutant gene 71
2007-May-24, 07:15 PM
So sorry Gillianren, but you can not hide behind maths on this one!

You know those pesky magnetic fields mainstream talk about? where is the other half of Amp&#232;re's Circuital law or Faraday's law of induction LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations)

The LAW (and in mathematical equation too) states one MUST have the other, must must must, unequivocally MUST have both. You can not have a cosmic magnetic field without invoking a cosmic electric field! :doh:

And mainstream goes on and on about magnetic fields, so where is the associated electric field? not a word mentioned! is it not important?

I'd say EU or not, but mathematicians are going to have a real hard time getting their equation to "fit" observations!

But you/we do have Maxwells (see link above) to work from, do the maths on a cosmic magnetic field and see what electrical power it can produce and vice a versa!

So you should be able to work out one or the other from one or the other? Easy :whistle:

And magnetic fields are HUGE like this LINK (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000506/fob5.asp)

And further down

Surprised!!! :doh: really

Very difficult to explain :rolleyes:



So Gillianren, I have officially had it with that particular line, "I'm surprised, very surprised" and "difficult to explain" because the EU has consistently predicted these findings!

I see mainstream has absolutely no idea, or they would not be surprised, because we see it in their press releases all the time.

Your court
Just first impressions here, since I am not well versed in Alfven's EU ideas, but had a thought to share. Mainstream cosmology seems to think of magnetic fields more on the model of a standing magnet, that the magnetic fields exist independent of electric currents. The old school bar magnet with iron filaments comes to mind here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html). However, the dynamics of magnetic fields in our Sun, or magnetic dynamics within hot plasma, or galactic magnetic fields, or even planetary magnetic fields, may be more complex than merely ‘standing magnetic fields’ independent of electric currents. Rather, we may have figured it out with the ‘dynamo’ effect for planets, and possibly the Sun, while observations are showing us it is more complex. The brown dwarf stars add another observation, showing energy jets, so again something new and puzzling to consider. What magnetic fields can exist independent of electric currents on such large scale phenomena? Something is being missed.

I suspect we got the whole ‘standing magnetic field’ effect wrong; I also suspect the ‘dynamo effect’ is not what we think, so just a simplistic explanation. How do temperatures inside the Sun and Earth above Curie temperature levels generate a dynamo effect, for example? There is a greater likelihood that these magnetic field phenomena, including the strong magnetic fields of the gas giant planets, have to do with their internal electric currents, though at present we have no idea how or why that works. As an alternative theory, yet one encompassing magnetic fields generated by super massive galactic black holes, as well as produced by hot stars and warm planets, is that perhaps the electric-magnetic relationships exist due to reasons of very energetic gravity centers inside these bodies. At present this is never considered, because we do not think of gravity centers as anything other than a constant force, the weakest of the four known forces, so dismiss it as merely a passive universally constant force. But if that is not so, that gravity centers of warm bodies, or hot stars, or super galactic centers, all generate an electro-magnetic force, regardless of the Curie temperatures, then this is something that could be considered for any future models (using math) to understand their dynamics observed. If so, then brown dwarfs, as failed stars with low electro-magnetic radiant energy output, but high gravity centers output, would make sense as strong magneto-stars, with strong magnetic fields, for reasons that are more EU in nature. However, that would require the idea that gravity centers for these bodies are not based upon the known physics of a universally constant G, but rather one that is somehow influenced by the e.m. forces generated. If I were to pick on one aspect of the math that should come in handy for the future study of EU type forces in the universe, it would be the Maxwellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations) derived: c = 1/ (UoEo)^1/2, as a function of light speed times the square root of the permittivity and permeability of space equals unity of one. I do not like the Lorentzian: F = q(E+v x B) equation, because it may not be universally the same for all universal systems equally, if G is not equally everywhere the same, so what may be true on Earth may not be what is true on the Sun, or for 'electric brown dwarfs', etc., due to different internal e.m. energy dynamics. But these are just seat of the pants, intuitive first impressions... so don't mind. :) Now I have to dive into my low cal, low cholesterol bowl of oatmeal, boring lunch.

korjik
2007-May-24, 07:47 PM
Just first impressions here, since I am not well versed in Alfven's EU ideas, but had a thought to share. Mainstream cosmology seems to think of magnetic fields more on the model of a standing magnet, that the magnetic fields exist independent of electric currents. The old school bar magnet with iron filaments comes to mind here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html). However, the dynamics of magnetic fields in our Sun, or magnetic dynamics within hot plasma, or galactic magnetic fields, or even planetary magnetic fields, may be more complex than merely ‘standing magnetic fields’ independent of electric currents. Rather, we may have figured it out with the ‘dynamo’ effect for planets, and possibly the Sun, while observations are showing us it is more complex. The brown dwarf stars add another observation, showing energy jets, so again something new and puzzling to consider. What magnetic fields can exist independent of electric currents on such large scale phenomena? Something is being missed.

I suspect we got the whole ‘standing magnetic field’ effect wrong; I also suspect the ‘dynamo effect’ is not what we think, so just a simplistic explanation. How do temperatures inside the Sun and Earth above Currie temperature levels generate a dynamo effect, for example? There is a greater likelihood that these magnetic field phenomena, including the strong magnetic fields of the gas giant planets, have to do with their internal electric currents, though at present we have no idea how or why that works. As an alternative theory, yet one encompassing magnetic fields generated by super massive galactic black holes, as well as produced by hot stars and warm planets, is that perhaps the electric-magnetic relationships exist due to reasons of very energetic gravity centers inside these bodies. At present this is never considered, because we do not think of gravity centers as anything other than a constant force, the weakest of the four known forces, so dismiss it as merely a passive universally constant force. But if that is not so, that gravity centers of warm bodies, or hot stars, or super galactic centers, all generate an electro-magnetic force, regardless of the Currie temperatures, then this is something that could be considered for any future models (using math) to understand their dynamics observed. If so, then brown dwarfs, as failed stars with low electro-magnetic radiant energy output, but high gravity centers output, would make sense as strong magneto-stars, with strong magnetic fields, for reasons that are more EU in nature. However, that would require the idea that gravity centers for these bodies are not based upon the known physics of a universally constant G, but rather one that is somehow influenced by the e.m. forces generated. If I were to pick on one aspect of the math that should come in handy for the future study of EU type forces in the universe, it would be the Maxwellian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_equations) derived: c = 1/ (UoEo)^1/2, as a function of light speed times the square root of the permittivity and permeability of space equals unity of one. I do not like the Lorentzian: F = q(E+v x B) equation, because it may not be universally the same for all universal systems equally, if G is not equally everywhere the same, so what may be true on Earth may not be what is true on the Sun, or for 'electric brown dwarfs', etc., due to different internal e.m. energy dynamics. But these are just seat of the pants, intuitive first impressions... so don't mind. :) Now I have to dive into my low cal, low cholesterol bowl of oatmeal, boring lunch.

Pretty much you have it exactly wrong. Mainstream cosmology thinks that magnetic fields come from currents at some point or another. Even the residual ferromagnetism in natural iron can be traced back to some other current somewhere.

The curie temp only applies to ferromagnetism if I remember right. It dosent apply to fields generated by currents. A current will always make a magnetic field. One problem frequently encountered here is that some dont seem to understand that the field has a great extent, and what is happening in one part of the field may have no effect on the generating current, and may be nowhere near the generating current.

Brown dwarfs probably have magnetic fields for the same reason as the sun and Jupiter do. Dynamo currents inside the body. All it takes to make a field is a charge carrier and rotation. In the sun it is plasma, in Jupiter it is metallic hydrogen, in the Earth it is molten iron.

Both finding c using the electromagnetic constants and the lorentz force both come from solving Maxwell's equations. Your liking or disliking them is irrelevant. Also, if you are worried about the lorentz force not being the same because G may be variable, then c will change also when the EM constants change.

Fazor
2007-May-24, 07:51 PM
Am I the only one confused by statements like "You can't hide behind math this time?" and "Mainstream has a monopoly on the math"?

Math is not an excuse...nor is it optional, or imaginary. Math is a common language--in fact, the most common language--to describe the world arround us. 1 apple is always 1 apple. Add 1 orange and you'll always have 2 objects. Split the apple and the orange into 4 parts each and you'll always have 8 parts.

Physics is more math than it is science. Infact, it can be argued that physics, which goes hand in hand with astronomy, is nothing BUT math. So stop using your lack of knowlege in the subject as an excuse.

papageno
2007-May-24, 07:54 PM
Mainstream cosmology seems to think of magnetic fields more on the model of a standing magnet, that the magnetic fields exist independent of electric currents.

Nope, you're wrong.

The magnetic properties in condensed matter are mostly due to the spins of the electrons and their interactions.
You can't use is in cosmology, even just as a picture or analogy.

The Curie temperature and similar concepts are about ordering of magnetic moments.
The dynamo effect is about charged particles in motion, not about magnetic moments.

Your post is yet another example of how little PC/EU proponents actually know about electrodynamics.

nutant gene 71
2007-May-24, 08:10 PM
Nope, you're wrong.

The magnetic properties in condensed matter are mostly due to the spins of the electrons and their interactions.
You can't use is in cosmology, even just as a picture or analogy.

The Curie temperature and similar concepts are about ordering of magnetic moments.
The dynamo effect is about charged particles in motion, not about magnetic moments.

Your post is yet another example of how little PC/EU proponents actually know about electrodynamics.

Well, yes, I admit my lack of knowledge on EU, but would not blanket my ignorance on the rest of those whose ATM ideas run counter to mainstream cosmology. Granted, I was making a case (with 'standing' magnetic fields) to explain how cosmologists can find acceptable the idea of magnetic fields irrespective of electric currents running through space plasma. Is this not what EU claims, that the electric currents run through space? And if so, does it not stand to reason that your counter-argument to mine actually proves Northwind right, as per his post here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=993292&postcount=15)? Just musing along, after my satisfying lunch. :)

papageno
2007-May-24, 08:24 PM
Well, yes, I admit my lack of knowledge on EU, but would not blanket my ignorance on the rest of those whose ATM ideas run counter to mainstream cosmology.

You are just one of the many I have seen, and you're no exception in your ignorance about general physics.




Granted, I was making a case (with 'standing' magnetic fields) to explain how cosmologists can find acceptable the idea of magnetic fields irrespective of electric currents running through space plasma.

You were not making a case, but a strawman.





Is this not what EU claims, that the electric currents run through space?

No, the EU claims boil down to: "We are right: just look at the pictures! The mainstream censors electricity!"





And if so, does it not stand to reason that your counter-argument to mine actually proves Northwind right, as per his post here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=993292&postcount=15)? Just musing along, after my satisfying lunch. :)

No, Northwind is just using your same strawman and whining about how bad the mainstream is.

But it is clear that you were not trying to make a substantial contribution to the thread, despite the length of your post. "Yanking the chain" describes more appropriately to your behaviour.

nutant gene 71
2007-May-24, 08:27 PM
Brown dwarfs probably have magnetic fields for the same reason as the sun and Jupiter do. Dynamo currents inside the body. All it takes to make a field is a charge carrier and rotation. In the sun it is plasma, in Jupiter it is metallic hydrogen, in the Earth it is molten iron.
If it is the 'dynamo' effect causing large body magnetic fields, what drives it in brown dwarfs? Or for that matter, what drives it in neutron stars, or SMBHs at galaxy centers? Molten iron above Curie temp inside the Earth may still generate magnetic fields, not ferromagnetism, but due to electric current generated by Earth's spin. My question on this 'dynamo' effect is this: does the Earth spin at the same rate in its molten metal core as the surface, or slower, or faster? What does the math say for electric current generated by this 'dynamo', at what rate, to effect the magnetic field measured? And then, finally, would that same math be applied to a brown dwarf, if we know its spin?

Here's a page which may offer some insights into kinematic dynamo theory of brown dwarfs: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hydromagnetic_Dynamo_Theory

Nereid
2007-May-24, 09:12 PM
If it is the 'dynamo' effect causing large body magnetic fields, what drives it in brown dwarfs? Or for that matter, what drives it in neutron stars, or SMBHs at galaxy centers? Molten iron above Curie temp inside the Earth may still generate magnetic fields, not ferromagnetism, but due to electric current generated by Earth's spin. My question on this 'dynamo' effect is this: does the Earth spin at the same rate in its molten metal core as the surface, or slower, or faster? What does the math say for electric current generated by this 'dynamo', at what rate, to effect the magnetic field measured? And then, finally, would that same math be applied to a brown dwarf, if we know its spin?These are all interesting questions! :)

Why not ask them, in BAUT's Q&A section?

What relevance do they have to this, ATM section thread?

upriver
2007-May-24, 09:25 PM
Usually beams emanating from central objects, like in the case with a black hole and an accretion disk around it, are "driven" by magnetic fields that get wound up and stick out of the central objects along the rotational axis. In this case it is a brown dwarf, with still part of a protostellar disk around it, with all the dynamics that happens in such a disk.


If you take a bar magnet, you cannot twist the magnetic field.

The only twist I have ever seen in any magnetic field has to do with the right hand rule. Current flowing through a wire has a twisted magnetic field around it.

(If you want to go the EU route, then you would say that rotation of the magnetic field around the central current flow is responsible for the rotation of the disc.
The twist in the magnetic field leaving the "blackhole" is from the rotation of the magnetic field around a current flow.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetic_rope.png

I mean these are basic laws. Why come up with anything else?

Just because you dont believe in current flow, you come up with something outside basic laws?



There is turbulence in such a disk, creating magnetic fields in it,


That like saying if I wind a random ball of wire on a generator core, it will produce a coherent magnetic field.

A circulating ring current in the disc might do it, but that would only produce a magnetic field like the earths, it would not produce a "jet".



whcih can escape through buoyancy and because the disk rotates, the magnetic fields get wound up. And plasma can get shot out along these wound up fields (a rather simplified explanation).

The only other way is if the magnetic field is following a current flow.

Think about it. It would have to be a flux tube or 2 flux tubes to twist a magnetic field. It would not happen out of the end of a bar magnet.

If it is collimated plasma, then there is a current flow and a right hand rule accompanying wrapped magnetic field.

I am being tutored by a real engineer that actually knows the math.

He said it will take some time for me to learn be able to quantify my discussions with Maxwell's equations.
He told me that the proper approach is E X J with the E being the causality.

He also told me that the whole geodynamo thing is very unstable. For it to work would take a extraordinary set of real conditions.

He said anything else is guessing.

ManInTheMirror
2007-May-24, 09:40 PM
I must say upriver, I really do admire your persistence. It's like pushing a herd of elephants up a hill to get the mainstream to recognize electrical flow when they observe it. If these guys had been required to take a few electronics classes in college you might actually have some hope of getting through to some of them. As it is, I get the impression that the math formulas they were handed in college related to GR are all that they understand. It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?

nutant gene 71
2007-May-24, 09:42 PM
These are all interesting questions! :)

Why not ask them, in BAUT's Q&A section?

What relevance do they have to this, ATM section thread?
Thanks, I'll have to visit Q&A and see what's up there.

About 'relevance' of my ATM questions, it has to do with material jets observed in 'brown dwarfs' (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2007/pr-24-07.html), which I believe was raised as a question in the OP's link. By what mechanism can such jets be generated? If electrical, how?

I just came by for a visit, not to "yank someone's chain" as someone unkindly ad hominemed earlier. Just curious, sometimes find discussions interesting, stimulating ideas. :)

R.A.F.
2007-May-24, 09:56 PM
It's like pushing a herd of elephants up a hill to get the mainstream to recognize electrical flow when they observe it...snip...It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?

Are those evil mainstreamers making your life difficult??

Woe is you...


If these guys had been required to take a few electronics classes in college you might actually have some hope of getting through to some of them.

So you're basically calling those who do not agree with you stupid.

Nice ad hom...

Nereid
2007-May-24, 10:20 PM
Northwind, EnoughDarkStuff: what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?
I must say upriver, I really do admire your persistence. It's like pushing a herd of elephants up a hill to get the mainstream to recognize electrical flow when they observe it. If these guys had been required to take a few electronics classes in college you might actually have some hope of getting through to some of them. As it is, I get the impression that the math formulas they were handed in college related to GR are all that they understand. It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?ManInTheMirror, upriver: what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?

For avoidance of doubt, I am asking this question - again - with a moderator hat on.

If you do not understand my question, please ask for clarification.

If you need more time to answer my question, please say so, and indicate when you expect to be able to answer.

If there is, in your opinion, no ATM idea being presented in this thread, please say so.

And so on.

In closing, may I remind you that Fraser has indicted, in quite explicit terms, that BAUT is not to be used to freely promote ATM ideas. I conclude from this that we mods need to be vigilant about new ATM threads that are started without a new ATM idea being presented (or significant new material on an old one).

ManInTheMirror
2007-May-24, 10:31 PM
Are those evil mainstreamers making your life difficult??

Me? Nah!


Woe is you...

Really? Life seems pretty great at the moment.


So you're basically calling those who do not agree with you stupid.

No, I'm just suggesting they are stubborn and not nearly as knowledgeable about electrical activity as they aught to be IMO.

publius
2007-May-24, 10:41 PM
As it is, I get the impression that the math formulas they were handed in college related to GR are all that they understand. It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?

And I don't merely get the impression, but see self-evident proof that you don't have the foggiest notion of what a "mainstream" education is. General Relativity, being quite a mathematical humdinger is generally not taught until the post-graduate level.

I have a degree in Physics, and EM was a significant chunk of that education, along with classical mechanics and thermodynamics followed by quantum mechanics, and then Special Relativity, which was actually taught in a 400/600 level EM course over two semesters. That is what an undergraduate degree in Physics consists of.

And oh yes, during that 400 level EM course, we looked at basic plasma relations, which started out with Maxwell, and F = q(E + v x B) which leads to the point function relation, F/vol = rho*E + J x B. That was the force on a differential volume element, which we then related to some fluid flow relations, and derived ourselves one rather splendidly non-linear set of equations. We then preceded, in an approximate way to see what sort of big picture phenomena we could pull out of those equations. Nothing in too much detail, mind you, because it's so darned complex it's a field of study unto itself. The purpose of that was to teach someone who was going to exit with an undergraduate degree in physics a little bit of what plasma theory looks like.

So yes, this "mainstreamer" knows all about EM. Indeed, that's actually how he makes a living, his GR and other discussions here being a nice little hobby. Got to keep the ol' brain exercised.

I had no formal course in General Relativity at all (Other that some very qualitative discussions about it) Why? Because it's well beyond the undergraduate level. If I had my druthers that would change, because as I've discovered, one can treat things fairly simply. You don't get the complete rigorous picture, but it would be darn fine for say a 400 level course.

And EEs? Wonderful people and more power to 'em. However, the do not learn EM from the "foundation level" that a physics student does (and the physics student doesn't get all the details the EE people look at). And EEs don't learn much about astrophysics at all.

My "mainstream" education in physics has given me the background to follow just about any discussion of stuff involving nature's physics. A jack of all trades (but master of none) if you will.

What the "Electric Universe" actually is seriously supposed to be, I don't know. But I'll say this: Maxwell perturbeth not Mother Earth from her geodesic. IOW, gravity is the dominant "force" on the astrophysical scale. Maxwell puts on quite a light show sometimes, but it does not significantly effect the motions of bodies on the astronomical scale.

-Richard

ManInTheMirror
2007-May-24, 11:16 PM
What the "Electric Universe" actually is seriously supposed to be, I don't know. But I'll say this: Maxwell perturbeth not Mother Earth from her geodesic. IOW, gravity is the dominant "force" on the astrophysical scale. Maxwell puts on quite a light show sometimes, but it does not significantly effect the motions of bodies on the astronomical scale.

-Richard

Let me ask you Richard if you've read the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven?

If you want an overview of EU theory, I suggest you start there.

The mainstream does not claim that gravity from known matter is the most dominant force in our universe, instead it describes "dark" things that it claims controls 96&#37; of the movements of the universe. That is why I disagree with your assessment that GR is the dominant force on the astrophysical scale. I see no evidence that this is the case.

ManInTheMirror
2007-May-24, 11:25 PM
ManInTheMirror, upriver: what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?

I'm not sure. You tell me. You set the rules around here.


If you do not understand my question, please ask for clarification.

If you need more time to answer my question, please say so, and indicate when you expect to be able to answer.

If there is, in your opinion, no ATM idea being presented in this thread, please say so.

And so on.

In closing, may I remind you that Fraser has indicted, in quite explicit terms, that BAUT is not to be used to freely promote ATM ideas. I conclude from this that we mods need to be vigilant about new ATM threads that are started without a new ATM idea being presented (or significant new material on an old one).

I'm a bit vague on what part of electrical activity is or is not an ATM idea in astronomy. Birkeland currents flowing through the earth are well documented, so Birkeland currents affecting other objects in space seems like a "mainstream" idea to me. Then again, I would expect large scale currents to also be considered mainstream, but that is not always a given.

I guess the only rational answer to your question is "I don't know".

madman
2007-May-25, 01:00 AM
Nereid

what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?


Northwind article

The outflow mechanism../..over an enormous range of masses



http://www.starstryder.com/2007/05/23/a-brown-dwarf-a-black-hole-and-4-jets/

Nereid
2007-May-25, 01:23 AM
Nereid
what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?

Northwind article

The outflow mechanism../..over an enormous range of masses

http://www.starstryder.com/2007/05/23/a-brown-dwarf-a-black-hole-and-4-jets/
I think this refers to the following preprint: Discovery of a Bipolar Outflow from 2MASSW J1207334-393254, A 24 Jupiter Mass Brown Dwarf (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703112) (the link is to the ArXiv preprint abstract).

If so, then there's no ATM idea ... it's a pretty straight-forward paper (preprint), even if the content is rather exciting ... (and the technique they used is way cool).

So, where's the ATM idea?

Northwind
2007-May-25, 01:37 AM
So we can move this thread to Astronomy then Neried?

And I'll ask THE question in Q&A to keep you happy, just do not get up me if electricity, plasma and magnetic fields come into it, because that would make it EU, no?

cjl
2007-May-25, 03:05 AM
Not necessarily. That would be like saying that if the subject of food comes up we are invariably talking about chocolate cake. While if we are talking about chocolate cake, we are invariably talking about food, the inverse does NOT apply. Similarly, though if we talk about EU, we will talk about plasma, electricity, etc, it does not mean that if we talk about these subjects, it is necessarily EU.

upriver
2007-May-25, 04:53 AM
I must say upriver, I really do admire your persistence. It's like pushing a herd of elephants up a hill to get the mainstream to recognize electrical flow when they observe it. If these guys had been required to take a few electronics classes in college you might actually have some hope of getting through to some of them. As it is, I get the impression that the math formulas they were handed in college related to GR are all that they understand. It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?

I have had opponents drop out on me in other pursuits in my life.;)

It became extremely clear that I was on the right path after talking to an engineer who laughs at the thought of an Aether, but is very astute in the application of Maxwell's equations.

I respect him for his candor. He says "Your ideas on the aether are crazy, but you seat of the pants application of Maxi's laws is accurate with respect to the right hand rule. To bad you cant quantify anything!"

Its crystal clear that the sun is electrically powered even though the exact formulation may be obscure. And the way to explain the solar wind is with thermionic emission theory from a solid surface.

Thanatos
2007-May-25, 06:23 AM
I was about to disagree, but am not sure what it is I disagree with. This is too vacuous to argue. A substantive claim might be useful.

tusenfem
2007-May-25, 07:10 AM
Do you have a reference to support any of this, please? In particular the measurement of the ampage of the Io flux tube. Thank you

Acuna et al. inferred from the Voyager measurements of the Io surroundings that in the Io flux tube / Alfven wing there is a current of 2.8 10[sup6[/sup] amps.
Acuna, Neubauer & Ness, Stanting Alfven weve current system at Io: Voyager I observations, Journal Geophysical Research 86, 8513-8521, 1981.

There should be a paper by Crary about the Galileo data, which I cannot find at the moment (no connection to ADS). And furthere there are the magnetic measurements of Galileo during the 8 or 9 Io flybys which can be very well modeled with currents flowing in the Io flux tube/Alfven wing. See e.g. papers by Saur.

tusenfem
2007-May-25, 07:42 AM
And then to Tusenfem, what happened, that post was light years ahead of your others regarding this subject. Excellent

I'll reword if I may just for fun this sentence

A Torus of dusty plasma around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies, along with double layers and regions of charge separation in the plasma). There are ALWAYS large and small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this (you have now)) in the plasma and these create large/small magnetic loops, which in turn influence the remaining dusty plasma along with passive and active plasmas.

Now, normally these loops will shrink/grow because the current dissipates/increases, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo or Faradays law of induction. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded and moved against a magnetic field, back on itself, generating a current further energizing the system (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). as the current it produce's self organize into filaments and Birkeland currents

This is dynamo action of turbulent magnetic fields which twist, fold and move against part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents/generate more magnetic fields and further make the system dynamic and hard to predict).

Little confused here as I would assume being more bouyant would imply a down and an up? So wich way would be up?

So I would say the increased magnetic "pressure" would form double layers and plasma instabilities that are looking for electrical equilibrium not "pressure" equilibrium.

So, the magnetic loops/double layers try and seek equilibrium through charge exchange in the process recombining and compressing matter between the Birkeland currents.

These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Ya loose me a bit there at the end, but on the whole I can nearly agree on what you wrote


This message is no different as what I have posted before in other threads. I have explained similar phenomena, heck I have explained THIS phenomenon in different threads with basically the same word. I am a very good scientist, so it is only normal that I can explain it all very well, lightyears ahead of anyone/thing (oops, now I am getting cocky).

Torus: No, a torus is a specific shape, like a doughnut, There is a plasma torus in Jupiter but not around a black hole or this brown dwarf. It is a disk, the width of the disk being much much larger than the thickness. If you want to make the plasma dusty, fine for you, that basically makes things only very much more complicated and will not add to trying to educate you about the processes going on, so I will disregard the dust for the moment.

Double layers and charge separation have nothing to do with turbulence. Turbulence is the cascading of energy from large to small scales, or in the case of an accretion disk, where the process may be 2D there can be inverse cascading from small to large scales.

Shrink/grow, what do you think is more likely to happen in a plasma? Dissipation I would say, because you basically have not understood that the dynamo that I mention in the next sentence is the growing of the magnetic loops.

Faradays law, the time variation of B is given by the curl of E, uhhhh?? How do you want to apply this?

Filametation into Birkeland currents, WOW, care to draw a picture for me how the current is flowing in this magnetic loop?

Up and down at buoyancy. The disk is in the equatorial plane of the central object, and is therefore stratified, i.e. most of the mass is in the equatorial plane and then there is large region above it in which the density slowly decrease, creating an up and down for you.

Why would increased magnetic pressure create double layers, I have never heard about that, and I did my PhD on double layers. You could be thinking this because I think you have the wrong impression of how the currents flow in this magnetic loop. Gas or plasma or magnetized plasma still hold to pressure equilibrium, and therefore increased magnetic pressure will have to lead to decreased plasma pressure. How would you like to describe the "returning to electrical equilibrium", whatever that may mean?

You are again linkin magnetic loops and double layers. WHY? you are suddenly talking about charge exchange, WHY? Everything I have described works in a fully ionized hydrogen plasma, where charge exchange does not exist. And then "recombining and compressing between Birkeland currents", what is that supposed to mean? The plasma is wayyyyy to hot to recombine and compression between Birkeland currents, I guess you want the oh-so-popular Z-pinch (hey Upriver!), really, please draw me a picture of the magnetic loop and its currents!!

Well, I basically expected you to get confused, and NO you do not agree with what I say. You put in your own interpretation of plasma physics (which is highly flawed) to make it agree with your ideas. My text may not have been perfect, but after your correction/addition it, it suffered a lot and became a rather bad description of what happens in the disk of the brown dwarf. So, better stick to the original.

tusenfem
2007-May-25, 07:47 AM
And most probably to Tusenfem's horror, HANNES ALFVÉN had this to say all those years ago LINK (http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1504/150412.pdf) Scroll to page 12

He was on to it 40 years ago, and all the new technology and data has proven him correct!

And "mainstream" are still surprised <shakes head in total disbelief>

Oh horror horribilis! I will not be able to live anymore, I think I will jump into a Birkeland current and get fried, but then, I am mainstream so I don't believe in Birkeland currents, mmm am I lucky here!

tusenfem
2007-May-25, 08:10 AM
If you take a bar magnet, you cannot twist the magnetic field.


True I guess.



The only twist I have ever seen in any magnetic field has to do with the right hand rule. Current flowing through a wire has a twisted magnetic field around it.


Ah, the magical mystery right hand rule. Yeah, Birkeland currents produce a magnetic field signature that is circular around the field where the current is flowing along. Been there done that.



(If you want to go the EU route, then you would say that rotation of the magnetic field around the central current flow is responsible for the rotation of the disc.
The twist in the magnetic field leaving the "blackhole" is from the rotation of the magnetic field around a current flow.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetic_rope.png
I mean these are basic laws. Why come up with anything else?
Just because you dont believe in current flow, you come up with something outside basic laws?


Sure, with the only little problem that when the original cloud was collapsing and not yet ionized the rotation was already there. And what is "rotation of the magnetic field around the central current flow" supposed to mean?
Ah cause and effect, effect and cause, is the magnetic field twisted along the rotational axis because there are curretns flowing, or are currents flowing becaues the field is twisted? Basically, I have given here the answer for the much sought "other side of the equation", because the inertial forces of the rotating disk are the generator in the system. But no EU proponent has seen it, ah well, who is surprised that they did not see it? Not me.

Indeed there are basic laws, and I apply them daily, especially now, because I am working on a large event in the magnetotail, where there are a lot of field aligned and cross-field currents flowing. Guess I will never get it published tho, with the mainstream being anti-current.

And don't tell me what I do or do not believe. What I have written down is all totally in agreement with basic physical laws. The fact that one can write the Maxwell equations either in B and v or in E and j, blah blah blah, we have discussed it all, and read Parker's paper again.



That like saying if I wind a random ball of wire on a generator core, it will produce a coherent magnetic field.

A circulating ring current in the disc might do it, but that would only produce a magnetic field like the earths, it would not produce a "jet".


Sure, that is how I power my electrical appliances.

You still have to show in another thread how the ringcurrent is creating the Earth's magnetic field, even though Gauss has shown that the field is internal.



The only other way is if the magnetic field is following a current flow.
Think about it. It would have to be a flux tube or 2 flux tubes to twist a magnetic field. It would not happen out of the end of a bar magnet.
If it is collimated plasma, then there is a current flow and a right hand rule accompanying wrapped magnetic field.
I am being tutored by a real engineer that actually knows the math.
He said it will take some time for me to learn be able to quantify my discussions with Maxwell's equations.
He told me that the proper approach is E X J with the E being the causality.
He also told me that the whole geodynamo thing is very unstable. For it to work would take a extraordinary set of real conditions.
He said anything else is guessing.


WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!
The magnetic field CANNOT follow the current! The magnetic field is ALWAYS perpendicular to the current
And in space we are not talking about bar magnets. A bar magnet is nice to visualise a dipolar magnetic field. Nobody in astrophysics is claiming that there are bar magnets in space.
I was tutored by a real plasmaastrophysics professor, how about that?
What is the cross product of E and J supposed to mean?
Mebbie it is unstable, but it is working.

As usual your comments are vague and useless, and show a lack of knowledge of basic electrodynamics. And it seems your tutor is also not so impressed by your knowledge of Maxwell's equations, from the comment he gave.

HenrikOlsen
2007-May-25, 09:44 AM
This whole thread is a rambling mess, mainly because there was no actual subject introduced in the start and as the OP has refused to define what's to be discussed here, everyone's flailing around arguing anything they can think of.

This thread is an example of what the rules where changed to prevent, and as such, I'm closing it down.


"Tell me how mainstream physics can explain that", while pointing at something is NOT the way to start a thread here.