7 ms·

Giant magnetic ropes seen in Whale Galaxy's halo

77 points by dnetesn 7y ago

mathiasrw 7y ago
This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model. It puts electricity and magnetism as the main shaping force of the universe while considering gravity a negligible influence. Look on youtube. Lots of good material.
- tiborsaas 7y ago
  https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
  - ColanR 7y ago
    The attitude of the content there isn't much better than the poster below who got flagged.
    - m4r35n357 7y ago
      It is called a scientific attitude. Do you have a problem with science?
      - tomhoward 7y ago
        People who are sincerely devoted to promoting knowledge and the betterment of the world are generally not arrogant and/or mean.
  - DiabloD3 7y ago
    Rational Wiki is a bit of a weird joke site where quasi-intellectuals go to troll and shitpost. Dang can correct me, but I think HN's rules, at some level, prohibit linking to such sites as a way to criticize someone.
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  Grow up, or learn some science, or both.
  - clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
    Unnecessary
    - m4r35n357 7y ago
      I disagree. This sort of new-age wankery is a direct route to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
  - dang 7y ago
    Attacking another user like this will get you banned on HN. If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
    - m4r35n357 7y ago
      Using the word "attack" as if I've mortally wounded someone is pretty disingenuous. BTW, thanks for inviting me not to contribute.
      - Infinitesimus 7y ago
        Might be a language/culture difference but "attack" also means strong/aggressive criticism and is valid in this context
- dkersten 7y ago
  YouTube is not, by itself, a credible source. Lots of bunk masquerading as science on YouTube.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  Lots of claims, not a lot of evidence.
- fsloth 7y ago
  Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion. For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism. With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it. These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it. If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum": https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    I can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x... I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
    - m4r35n357 7y ago
- EddieCPU 7y ago
  @mathiasrw: "This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model .." I disagree but can offer no opposing evidence, therefore I'm going to mod your post into oblivion :]
flareback 7y ago
How do they get an image of the magnetic fields?
- avian 7y ago
  > The image was made by combining data from multiple observations with the VLA's giant dish antennas arranged in different configurations to show both large structures and finer details within the galaxy. The naturally-emitted radio waves from the galaxy were analyzed to reveal the magnetic fields, including their directions. In other words, this is a computer-generated image based on measured radio emissions and lots of modeling. The papers linked in the article have a more detailed description of the methodology.
- gattr 7y ago
  By measuring polarization of the received radio-frequency signals. The polarization is affected by magnetic fields ("Faraday rotation", see [0, 1]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#In_the_interstellar_medium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#In_the_interste... [1] https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag
DiabloD3 7y ago
It's pretty cool they've been able to discover and image galactic Birkeland currents. Alfvén's work predicted that such things exist and, sadly, he didn't live long enough to see today's cosmologists continue his work.
EddieCPU 7y ago
What does this mean for the long term evolution of galaxies, no need for dark matter?
- pfdietz 7y ago
  No. The forces on stars from galactic magnetic fields are insignificantly small.
zyxzevn 7y ago
Strong magnetic fields in galaxies are very common. http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields But there is a huge problem with them. Like Alfven, I am against the idea of frozen magnetic fields. Frozen fields were invented to explain how magnetic fields can exist, without the need for electric currents. At that time they thought that space was a very good isolator. Thanks to laboratories and satellites we now know different. With my background in electromagnetism, I have to go one step further: frozen fields are physically impossible. The papers and text-books about them show false usage of induction laws. As if magnetism behaves like a current, like in a waveguide with electromagnetic waves. Sadly this is completely false. Induction in gasses or plasma behave a bit like those in a fluid, and they disperse the magnetic field. A bit like eddy currents. That is also what we see in our laboratories. But magnetic fields can easily be caused by electric currents instead, because any electric current creates a magnetic field. This field is stronger when we measure closer to the current. So we can get very strong magnetic fields as we see inside young galaxies. Link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong-magnetic-field-in-young-galaxy-perplexes-astronomers https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong... So we have electric plasma currents, instead of "magnetic ropes". Like in our laboratories. But I am not sure whether the community is ready to accept that.. Instead of the dynamo model, strong electric currents can easily come from nuclear explosions. These have been reported, but due to the secrecy they are not openly reported. Just a magnetic field can create a homopolar dynamo in an electric current. Currents are usually circular, but in a large space and very high speeds, the charge can take a long time to come around. It will be very interesting to actually measure the scale at which these occur. Now if we have a black-hole like object in the centre of a galaxy, that spews out matter into 2 main directions. Because it also has a magnetic field, it is very likely that this matter has a certain charge. So this creates a current in the galaxy, which also generates the magnetic field. This how I think the magnetic field is generated. The strength of these electric currents is in the order of 1/R, where R is the distance travelled. That is because currents are usually concentrated into one direction, like lightning, and only resistance hinders it. Magnetic objects encounter a force of 1/R^4 because magnetic objects have 2 poles. So these electric currents can transfer energy over very long distances. As this matter-beam reaches the edge of the galaxy, it will turn around and go back to the galaxy. And because it has some charge, it will create a polarizing field in the halo.It would be interesting to see if there is also some sustained charge in these halos. https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bubbles.html https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bub... I suspect that the Fermi bubbles might have an opposite charge.

77 points by dnetesn 7y ago

This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model. It puts electricity and magnetism as the main shaping force of the universe while considering gravity a negligible influence. Look on youtube. Lots of good material.

tiborsaas 7y ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_Universe
- ColanR 7y ago
  The attitude of the content there isn't much better than the poster below who got flagged.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    It is called a scientific attitude. Do you have a problem with science?
    - tomhoward 7y ago
      People who are sincerely devoted to promoting knowledge and the betterment of the world are generally not arrogant and/or mean.
- DiabloD3 7y ago
  Rational Wiki is a bit of a weird joke site where quasi-intellectuals go to troll and shitpost. Dang can correct me, but I think HN's rules, at some level, prohibit linking to such sites as a way to criticize someone.
m4r35n357 7y ago
Grow up, or learn some science, or both.
- clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
  Unnecessary
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    I disagree. This sort of new-age wankery is a direct route to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
- dang 7y ago
  Attacking another user like this will get you banned on HN. If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
    Using the word "attack" as if I've mortally wounded someone is pretty disingenuous. BTW, thanks for inviting me not to contribute.
    - Infinitesimus 7y ago
      Might be a language/culture difference but "attack" also means strong/aggressive criticism and is valid in this context
dkersten 7y ago
YouTube is not, by itself, a credible source. Lots of bunk masquerading as science on YouTube.
nkrisc 7y ago
Lots of claims, not a lot of evidence.
fsloth 7y ago
Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion. For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism. With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it. These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it. If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum": https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129 Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !
- m4r35n357 7y ago
  I can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x1lo-O_kpZGk8 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x... I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed? I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
  - m4r35n357 7y ago
EddieCPU 7y ago
@mathiasrw: "This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model .." I disagree but can offer no opposing evidence, therefore I'm going to mod your post into oblivion :]

flareback 7y ago

How do they get an image of the magnetic fields?

avian 7y ago
> The image was made by combining data from multiple observations with the VLA's giant dish antennas arranged in different configurations to show both large structures and finer details within the galaxy. The naturally-emitted radio waves from the galaxy were analyzed to reveal the magnetic fields, including their directions. In other words, this is a computer-generated image based on measured radio emissions and lots of modeling. The papers linked in the article have a more detailed description of the methodology.
gattr 7y ago
By measuring polarization of the received radio-frequency signals. The polarization is affected by magnetic fields ("Faraday rotation", see [0, 1]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#In_the_interstellar_medium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#In_the_interste... [1] https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag

DiabloD3 7y ago

It's pretty cool they've been able to discover and image galactic Birkeland currents. Alfvén's work predicted that such things exist and, sadly, he didn't live long enough to see today's cosmologists continue his work.

EddieCPU 7y ago

What does this mean for the long term evolution of galaxies, no need for dark matter?

pfdietz 7y ago
No. The forces on stars from galactic magnetic fields are insignificantly small.

zyxzevn 7y ago

Strong magnetic fields in galaxies are very common. http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields http://scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields But there is a huge problem with them. Like Alfven, I am against the idea of frozen magnetic fields. Frozen fields were invented to explain how magnetic fields can exist, without the need for electric currents. At that time they thought that space was a very good isolator. Thanks to laboratories and satellites we now know different. With my background in electromagnetism, I have to go one step further: frozen fields are physically impossible. The papers and text-books about them show false usage of induction laws. As if magnetism behaves like a current, like in a waveguide with electromagnetic waves. Sadly this is completely false. Induction in gasses or plasma behave a bit like those in a fluid, and they disperse the magnetic field. A bit like eddy currents. That is also what we see in our laboratories. But magnetic fields can easily be caused by electric currents instead, because any electric current creates a magnetic field. This field is stronger when we measure closer to the current. So we can get very strong magnetic fields as we see inside young galaxies. Link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong-magnetic-field-in-young-galaxy-perplexes-astronomers https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong... So we have electric plasma currents, instead of "magnetic ropes". Like in our laboratories. But I am not sure whether the community is ready to accept that.. Instead of the dynamo model, strong electric currents can easily come from nuclear explosions. These have been reported, but due to the secrecy they are not openly reported. Just a magnetic field can create a homopolar dynamo in an electric current. Currents are usually circular, but in a large space and very high speeds, the charge can take a long time to come around. It will be very interesting to actually measure the scale at which these occur. Now if we have a black-hole like object in the centre of a galaxy, that spews out matter into 2 main directions. Because it also has a magnetic field, it is very likely that this matter has a certain charge. So this creates a current in the galaxy, which also generates the magnetic field. This how I think the magnetic field is generated. The strength of these electric currents is in the order of 1/R, where R is the distance travelled. That is because currents are usually concentrated into one direction, like lightning, and only resistance hinders it. Magnetic objects encounter a force of 1/R^4 because magnetic objects have 2 poles. So these electric currents can transfer energy over very long distances. As this matter-beam reaches the edge of the galaxy, it will turn around and go back to the galaxy. And because it has some charge, it will create a polarizing field in the halo.It would be interesting to see if there is also some sustained charge in these halos. https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bubbles.html https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bub... I suspect that the Fermi bubbles might have an opposite charge.