I wrote:Lawrence B. Crowell wrote:Assume the universe had a net electric charge. What would happen? Think of the lines of electric force. These lines would wrap around space and would find no charge to connect up with. They would wrap around infinitely and the density of the electromagnetic field energy would diverge. This would happen if the universe contained only one excess electron. This is a physical situation which is unacceptable.
Lawrence B. Crowell
My last attempt at a response was eaten by the system, which apparently did not realize its brilliance or feel a need to save it before I hit submit and it burped... I'll try this again.
----------
Rather, assume not that the universe has a net EXCESSIVE charge, but that it has equal but separate charges. That would be more in keeping with particle pair creation. Positive and negative. All that good stuff.
Consider a circle drawn with a line through its diameter. Put a [+] in on half and a [-] in the other half. What would happen? Or, draw 3 circles in each half. In one half, put a [+] in 2 of the circles and a [-] in the other circle, in the other half, do the opposite (putting a [-] in 2 of the 3 circles and a [+] in the other).
In any of those examples, the whole is composed of equal number of charges, but also largely charge separated ("polarized" to some degree? If that's the right term; I'll use it as if it is). The question is whether that is the case or whether the charges are so highly ordered that even on the smaller domains they are largely neutral.
It seems to me that there is an assumption that the Big Bang is true, and thus a second assumption is made that matter started out in a largely homogeneous, neutral state and nothing could "charge separate" it.
But what if one, for the sake of argument, were to argue that the universe started charge-separated and has been slowly neutralizing over time? This could be accomplished through the process of Marklund convection, wherein electric currents in plasma can separate or concentrated materials of differing ionization levels. That's one approach taken by Plasma Cosmologists. They claim that it is supported by peer reviewed papers detailing supercomputer simulations carried out at Los Alamos. Moreover, galaxy rotation curves, emission spectra and other features appear to match actual observations. (Galaxy rotation in particular should raise eyebrows since that's one place the Big Bang model has had to issue theoretical, unproven patchwork [Dark Matter] to fix its flaws.)
(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... 6TPS-I.pdf
(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downl ... TPS-II.pdf
It seems the question comes down to starting points and assumptions. Do we start with the assumption that matter started out evenly distributed and charge-neutral? Or do we start with the assumption that matter started out charge-separated and is going through a process of charge neutralization? If the latter, what might be expected of it?
There also seems to be a pre-supposition that electric currents cannot flow through space, despite the fact that several have already been detected and remarked upon.
(The Io Dynamo)
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wio.html
The path of the space probe Voyager 1 was designed to check out this dynamo, by flying close to where its currents were expected to flow. It did so on March 5, 1979, and its magnetometer very clearly detected the signature of a current of about a million amperes.
Or do the flux tubes actually close in BOTH hemispheres of Jupiter, forming a
circuit?
(New, Unexpected Spots Found on Jupiter)
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/18 ... n-jupiter/
They found that when there were faint leading spots in one of the hemispheres, there were multiple spots in the other. The researchers propose that a beam of electrons is being transferred from one hemisphere to another, causing the fainter spots.
A beam of electrons... Hmm. What's that called again? It's on the tip of my tongue. Flow of charged particles, net motion, same direction, along a circuit... River? No, that's not quite right. Stream? No, not it either. [/Sarcasm] Well, we'll get to it later...
Recently NASA also announced the discovery of "magnetic flux ropes" by the THEMIS team:
(NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... ights.html
A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS' five identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.
"The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," said David Sibeck, project scientist for the mission at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras."
But, even more to the point, the associated multimedia tells a slightly more technically correct story that was glossed over and went essentially unremarked in the press release proper:
(Multimedia for the Press Event for THEMIS)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... multi.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/2037 ... er_400.jpg
10. Flux Ropes Power the Magnetosphere! THEMIS discovered a flux rope pumping a 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic.
It seems that the Io-Jupiter flux tubes carry a 1,000,000 Amp current and the "magnetic flux ropes" carry a 650,000 Amp current. A far cry from the proposition that currents can't or won't flow in the ionized medium between ponderable bodies in space (or rather in the sea of electrically conductive plasma). Don't such currents argue against the notion of charge equilibrium / neutrality? If charges were completely neutral, there should be no need for charges to flow...
If anyone wonders why the magnetic fields were seen to be "organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope," one need look no further than the electrical currents flowing through the plasma. One
expects them to adopt a twisted, helical, and/or
filamentary structure!
There is no reason to believe that the structures and processes we see at the scale of our solar system (650,000-1,000,000 Ampere currents, filamentation, etc.) should not also be seen scaled up or scaled down. Plasma scaling works over 26 orders of magnitude (if I'm recalling correctly). That's from approximately the microscopic up to cosmic dimensions.
To properly understand the interactions, we must properly understand the structures and processes themselves. In my opinion, the problem comes when astronomers attempt to explain everything by way of magnetic fields but forget the electro- part of electromagnetism. Where do magnetic fields come from? For that matter, where do electric fields come from? That's pretty simple to answer, for anyone who actually takes the time to
read, these days. A luxury many seem to do without, unfortunately. Let me simplify it for you:
(Hyperphysics: Magnetic Field)
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... agfie.html
Magnetic fields are produced by
electric currents, which can be macroscopic currents in wires, or microscopic currents associated with electrons in atomic orbits.
(NASA: Magnetic Fields)
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html
People not familiar with magnetism often view it as a somewhat mysterious property of specially treated iron or steel.
...
It is all related to electricity.
...
Close to 1800 it was found that when the ends of a chemical "battery" were connected by a metal wire, a steady stream of electric charges flowed in that wire and heated it. That flow became known as an electric current. In a simplified view, what happens is that electrons hop from atom to atom in the metal.
In 1821 Hans Christian Oersted in Denmark found, unexpectedly, that such an electric current caused a compass needle to move. An electric current produced a magnetic force!
Andre-Marie Ampere in France soon unraveled the meaning. The fundamental nature of magnetism was not associated with magnetic poles or iron magnets, but with electric currents. The magnetic force was basically a force between electric currents (figure below):
--Two parallel currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two parallel currents in opposite directions repel each other.
...
--Two circular currents in the same direction attract each other.
--Two circular currents in opposite directions repel each other.
(World Health Organization: What are electromagnetic fields?)
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/
Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
(Extract from Electromagnetic fields published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).
(Wikipedia: Electromagnetic field)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field
The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field.
...
The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.
All sources are quite explicit:
-
Electric fields are
produced by stationary charges (
electrostatics).
-
Magnetic fields are
produced by charges in net, like motion (
electrodynamics)
There does not appear to be any room for argument in the interpretation. If someone wants to argue the point, they'll have to take it up with James Clerk Maxwell and Andre-Marie Ampere, but you'll probably have to desecrate their legacy and/or remains to do it. :yuck:
It's my opinion that, assuming Maxwell, Ampere,
et al are correct, astronomers need to radically upgrade their understanding of what's going on, and include electrodynamics in their calculations, or risk missing a BIG piece of the puzzle. 'Cause where we see magnetic fields, the definitions tell us that an electric current is REQUIRED in order to maintain it.
Hannes Alfvén (Nobel prize-winning plasma physicist and "father of MHD") stated emphatically that the notions of both "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen-in fields lines" in plasma (the latter concept of which he more-or-less invented and popularized, then later realized his own error) are
incorrect. More recently, Don Scott has also
vetoed the notion of "magnetic reconnection." Both favor an electrical explanation in line with actual lab physics.
Magnetic fields have been implicated in everything from star formation, to "black hole" jets, solar-terrestrial interactions, etc. If electrical interactions underpin it all, and they're being actively ignored, it's little wonder astronomers appear to express shock, awe and dismay (as data doesn't fit or outright violates predictions) at every turn in the news.
I didn't mean to wander quite so far afield, but some things needed saying. Now they've been said. Take it as you will. If
magnetic fields are a mysterious key to unlocking the secrets of the universe, the underlying electrodynamics may be the locksmith telling us how the key
works and into which locks it fits.
Just my 2c. Hope the ramble has been both fun and informative.
Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin
(An avowed "scientific crackpot," who thinks that Maxwell, Ampere,
et al are correct unless/until proven otherwise, and a little sanity needs to return to the astronomical sciences. [/Sarcasm] Dark Matter and Dark Energy are simply inelegant kludges to patch holes in existing theory due to misunderstanding, misapplication, or outright ignorance of the basics: magnetism seen so ubiquitously in the universe equates to electrodynamics, or the motion of charged particles in electrical currents / circuits.)
Seriously, though, read the theories and definitions related to electricity, and magnetism and their relationship! Electricity is the flip side of magnetism. The universe is threaded with magnetic fields; it simply remains to be
actively recognized that it means (by extension) that the universe is also underlain by electric currents. Regardless of anyone's personal cognitive dissonance.
