[/caption]
Some of the most frequently asked questions we get here at Universe Today and Astronomy Cast deal with black holes. Everyone wants to know what conditions would be like at the event horizon, or even inside a black hole. Answering those questions is difficult because so much about black holes is unknown. Black holes can’t be observed directly because their immense gravity won’t let light escape. But in just the past week, three different research teams have released their findings in their attempts to create black holes – or at least conditions analogous to them to advance our understanding.
Make Your Own Accretion Disk
A team of researchers from Osaka University in Japan wanted to sharpen their insights into the behavior of matter and energy in extreme conditions. What could be more extreme than the conditions of the swirling cloud of matter surrounding a black hole, known as the accretion disk? Their unique approach was to blast a plastic pellet with high-energy laser beams.
Accretion disks get crunched and heated by a black hole’s gravitational energy. Because of this, the disks glow in x-ray light. Analyzing the spectra of these x-rays gives researchers clues about the physics of the black hole.
However, scientists don’t know precisely how much energy is required to produce such x-rays. Part of the difficulty is a process called photoionization, in which the high-energy photons conveying the x-rays strip away electrons from atoms within the accretion disk. That lost energy alters the characteristics of the x-ray spectra, making it more difficult to measure precisely the total amount of energy being emitted.
To get a better handle on how much energy those photoionized atoms consume, researchers zapped a tiny plastic pellet with 12 laser beams fired simultaneously and allowed some of the resulting radiation to blast a pellet of silicon, a common element in accretion disks.
The synchronized laser strikes caused the plastic pellet to implode, creating an extremely hot and dense core of gas, or plasma. That turned the pellet into “a source of [immensely powerful] x-rays similar to those from an accretion disk around a black hole,” says physicist and lead author Shinsuke Fujioka. The team said the x-rays photoionized the silicon, and that interaction mimicked the emissions observed in accretion disks. By measuring the energy lost from the photoionization, the researchers could measure total energy emitted from the implosion and use it to improve their understanding of the behavior of x-rays emitted by accretion disks.
The Portable Black Hole
Another group of physicists created a tiny device that can create a black hole by sucking up microwave light and converting it into heat. At just 22 centimeters across, the device can fit in your pocket.
The device uses ‘metamaterials’, specially engineered materials that can bend light in unusual ways. Previously, scientists have used such metamaterials to build ‘invisibility carpets’ and super-clear lenses. This latest black hole was made by Qiang Chen and Tie Jun Cui of Southeast University in Nanjing, China.
Real black holes use their huge mass to warp space around it. Light that travels too close to it can become trapped forever.
The new meta-black hole also bends light, but in a very different way. Rather than relying on gravity, the black hole uses a series of metallic ‘resonators’ arranged in 60 concentric circles. The resonators affect the electric and magnetic fields of a passing light wave, causing it to bend towards the centre of the hole. It spirals closer and closer to the black hole’s ‘core’ until it reaches the 20 innermost layers. Those layers are made of another set of resonators that convert light into heat. The result: what goes in cannot come out. “The light into the core is totally absorbed,” Cui said.
Not only is the device useful in studying black holes, but the research team hopes to create a version of the device that will suck up light of optical frequencies. If it works, it could be used in applications such as solar cells.
Black holes in your computer?
Could you create a black hole in your computer? Maybe if you had a really big one. Scientists at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) hope to make use of two of the fastest supercomputers in the world in their quest to “shine light” on black holes. The team was approved for grants and computing time to study the evolution of black holes and other objects with the “NewHorizons,” a cluster consisting of 85 nodes with four processors each, connected via an Infiniband network that passes data at 10-gigabyte-per-second speeds.
The team has created computer algorithms to simulate with mathematics and computer graphics what cannot be seen directly.
“It is a thrilling time to study black holes,” said Manuela Campanelli, center director. “We’re nearing the point where our calculations will be used to test one of the last unexplored aspects of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, possibly confirming that it properly describes the strongest gravitational fields in the universe.”
Sources: Science, Astronomy Magazine Technology Review Blog
“We’re nearing the point where our calculations will be used to test one of the last unexplored aspects of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity”: something eludes me here.
I guess this simulation uses known theories (GR) to fuel its algorithms: I fully expect the results will not run against premises. Or did I miss something?
That’s kind of the whole idea, they’ll be simulating everything that they can using the known theories. Everything the find from that will agree with the theories. This will however make predictions and observations that can be compared with observations in our real universe to see if the results agree with each other. If they do then it will lend credibility towards current theories and ideas. If however they show things that aren’t observed in the real counterparts (or vice versa), then you have either a bad simulation (checked by doing things repeatedly by different groups) or it means that there are problems with the current theories.
Yup. The equations of GR for black holes are impossible to solve analytically in anything but highly idealised/uncomplicated situations or for metrics with unusually simple symmetries. These simplified situations are fine for many calculations and to illustrate the basic predictions of the theory, but the only way to attack problems involving more complex situations is numerically, in which case the the calculations become incredibly computationally intensive.
So yes – GR has been well studied and verified, and many of it’s predictions borne out. What physicists want to do now is use the laws of GR to simulate more complex situations such as the behaviour of bulk material in realistic black hole accretion disks, or coalescing neutron stars to see how such systems should behave based on the GR predictions, and hence what observable characteristics such systems will possess.
Astronomers can then go out and see if it all matches up precisely, which it almost certainly won’t, because the situations at hand are always more complicated than our present day simulations can allow for. Happily, this almost always provides new clues towards understanding the true complexity of the structure and behaviours of the object under study. Happy days.
The metamaterial object is not a black hole it simply traps photons
The differential equations of the Einstein field equation are nonlinear. They are nonlinear in a way that Yang-Mills gauge equations for quantum chromodynamics of quarks and gluons are nonlinear. Further, the solution space (moduli space) is non-Hausdorff, which makes things complicated. This means analytic or exact solutions are somewhat idealized, and these solutions are then perturbed in various ways to look at realistic problems.
The other approach to finding physics from the Einstein field equations is of course to numerically integrate them. There are a number of ways this can be done. One approach is the Regge calculus, which struts up spacetime with finite element polytopes. The other approach is with grid adaptive algorithms, similar to what is used in hydrodynamics. Intellectually the Regge calculus is more interesting, but from a practical perspective grid adaptive algorithms have been more successful.
These approaches mentioned above, where in addition to meta-materials with strange indices of refraction there are nonlinear optical fiber approaches and Josephson junction approaches, are revisions of analogue computers. Back in the 1950-60 time period analogue computers were used quite a bit to solve differential equations. Electronic components were put together to electronically construct a differential equation. These approaches to modeling spacetimes with physical analogues seem to be taking us back to analogue models of computation.
LC
Black holes are neither. Space-time and matter are mutually antagonistic. Gravity is not a force, just a consequence of this interaction of space-time and matter. When enough matter is concentrated in one place, space-time is twisted to the point that a balance is reached between space-time and matter. This balance results in a “bubble” of matter of nearly infinite density becoming virtually a two-dimensional sphere with nothing on the inside.
When a star collapses, space-time is stressed to the point that it rebounds forcing the mass outward resulting in a nova. If there is enough matter, space-time pressure (gravity) will balance the outward pressure of collapsed space-time resulting in a black hole.
Incidentially, gravity is not a force. Gravity is the consequence of the mutual antagonism of matter and space-time. This antagonism results in spherical planets, the limit of the speed of light, and the accellerating expansion of the universe.
The “black hole” theory (really a hypothesis since “black holes” are by definition unobservable) relies on gravity and you have to have enough mass present for its gravity to trap light. The idea that physical analogies in the real world would mimic “black hole” conditions is unrealistic.
Unreaslistic because even the proponents of “black hole” theory admit they don’t understand the physics in a “black hole” and because such physics, if they exist (and they don’t) are unreproducable because such physics rely on unquantifiable infinities.
It’s just a black hole sucking scare resources into idle speculation.
Anaconda: It has been done. There are light trapping materials. There are also laboratory analogues with fiber optics of black holes.
LC
@snake
Why must you continue to bait people? Have you learned nothing here? I’m tiring of your inane “theories” and constant attacks on established and reputable scientific theories. Enough!
Anaconda: boring everyone to death since ’07.
Isn’t all of EU/PC one big hypothesis?
The Wright brothers were laughed at for dreaming human flight could become possible. Now we have even “flown” men to the moon. Many small steps, from one to the other, were learned here on Earth in the laboratory. Do not laugh at the possibilities of the human mind and research. It may take the time registered by not us, but our future generations, to prove just what is inside that event horizon. However, you might remember here some of the sketches done generations ago. They closely resemble some of the first helicopters built and flown.Thank you, Sr. Leonardo daVinci ! You believed in “the impossible” and even left us a paper to begin with for our later studies of those “insane aerodynamics”.
The analogues with daVinci or the Wright brothers are off the mark. Anaconda’s EU stuff is more Rube Goldberg. It is just pure rubbish.
LC
Since you guys seem so defensive when folks point out problems with your ideas.
Are there any ideas proposed by mainstream physicists that are too much for you to stomach?
Like the guys at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya, top theoretical physicists, who are each offering “serious” theories, complete with “rigorous” math, to show that the Higgs Boson may be protecting itself from discovery, and doing so from the future via backward causality. Nielsen is one of the fathers of string theory and is one of the top dogs at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, so his theory is thought to merit a worldwide press release. His status has also protected him, so far, from ridicule.
Is that how bad it’s gotten in top physics, today, that people get taken seriously about such nonsense when all they deserve is ridicule?
Come on Crowell, tell me you take their “theory” seriously?
So-called “black holes” are theoretical nonsense, just slightly better than the garbage thrown out by the two, above, CERN physicists.
Yes, you guys go ahead and rally around that nonsense. It will allow other readers to judge the quality of your reasoning.
I’m waiting…
Nielsen and Ninomiya paper on retrocausality is causing more gufaws and chuckles in the physics world than anything serious. Dennis Overbye wrote a semi-humorous editorial in the NY Times over this. So you can cast a complete net of negative commentary on physics over the oddball ideas of two theorists. None of this somehow magically raises the credbility of EU nonsesnse. Your EU stuff still remains what it is; pure unadulterated dogmeat.
LC
@ Crowell:
Good to hear that.
As far as the rest goes.
NASA has this to say:
“Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth. Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism) that are important to understanding dynamic characteristics of the Sun and how the Sun interacts with the Earth.”
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/electricity.htm
“Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth.”
Gee, sounds like something straight out of the ‘Electric Universe’ playbook.
Beyond the fact that NASA is teaching electromagnetism in space, space plasma dynamics, to the general public and close-minded astronomers, physical laws describe physical processes & relationships that are constant throughout the Universe. So what is happening within this solar system is more than likely happening in other star systems and, indeed, throughout the Universe.
Additional in situ satellite probes will likely only increase this understanding that “electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical” to Man’s understanding of the solar system, and believe it or not, likely there will be a emerging realization in members of the astronomy community, too, that “electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical” to cosmological study & understanding, as well.
Dog meat?
Hardly.
I susect the overt hostility directed my way and the ‘Electric Universe’ way, here, reflects the fear that the train of scientific evidence that supports EU will only keep gaining speed.
That would explain the fear & loathing to a “T”.
No.
Just because there are currents in space is no “proof” of EU claims. And just to claim that any current in space must be a proof of EU, is just nonsense.
In fact, noone disputes that currents must have a role in the universe (even I admit that, now, as you might know). However, the role it plays is on details – not large scales. You have no large scale electic fields and that is also shown by in-situ experiments in near-earth space. The sun is not on any electric potential, on average the sun is not charged (also called “overall neutral”) – otherwise we would see an electric field, which we don’t!
That is contrary to a basic EU claim.
Dr Flimmer, indeed so. It is the character of mendacities that they take something which might indeed be true, but then extrapolate from that to claim things which are not true. The rubbish Anaconda promotes does just this. He even seems to think that NASA have found that magnetic field are associated with currents, as if M, Faraday didn’t figure that out over 150 years ago.
LC
Thank you, SteveZodiac! Using the term, black hole for this device is bad journalism.
I am oppose to any research that would create a real black hole anywhere near the Earth’s orbit, unless, like at the RHIC, it has a half-life of less then a femtosecond.
I find it interesting that Anaconda conveniently ignores that NASA also tacitly believes in (and funds numerous studies of) black holes, dark matter, dark energy and the Big Bang theory, among many theories Anaconda vehemently opposes. If NASA is the end all/ be all when it comes to ‘endorsing’ astronomical theories, his silence on these glaring contradictions is all the more amazing.
Also, has Anaconda read and analyzed the original paper by these two CERN researchers? I’m not defending or disputing the paper he has brought up. I just wonder how he attained the expertise to critically comment on this paper, or has he relied on others accounts as to the contents of this paper. I haven’t read the paper myself, and readily admit I don’t have the expertise to thoughtfully weigh in as to its veracity. I doubt very much that Anaconda has a) read and b) comprehended the substance in this paper.
@ Anaconda: precisely what section and paragraph(s) of the paper did you find fault with? Please enlighten us.
Anaconda writes: “straight out of the ‘Electric Universe’ playbook.” Where is this “playbook” and has it been subject to peer review by the majority of the astrophysics community?
@ Jon Hanford (second post)
Pff…it is straight out of any book dealing with electromagnetism…… But I haven’t found any hints of EU in the “Jackson” or “Griffiths”…..
The perception that hostility is based on fear of EU ascendancy is such self-important rubbish. The hostility towards you has always been based on but not limited to the following:
– empty rhetorical railings against “mainstream astronomy”
– ignorance of scientific concepts.
– dishonest discourse.
– repeatedly relapsing back to discredited rhetoric as you’re doing right now.
You have a track record of about 10 months of this (that I know of).
Your game plan appears to be to constantly push the idea that “modern astronomy” is gravity only. So that any new electrical and electromagnetic findings appear to be a win for EU/PC. While the irony is that all such discoveries come from “modern astronomy” because astronomers are constantly studying the universe in any shape and form, not just the gravitational qualities.
You are intellectually dishonest. And that bothers me.
And after all this, you play the victim.
We’ve asked you several times for evidence backing up EU/PC concepts in the spirit of scientific discourse. The response was always lacking. Please show us evidence of the electrical charge of the Sun. Has this been measured?
Given that after all these month where people have engaged you in substantive and patient discussions (ignoring the personal ones which you yourself engaged in) where scientific concepts have been explained to you, and you still come back with the same games and rhetoric, there really is no longer any reason to talk to you.
If you’re this interested in science, take some classes, go to college and get a degree, get into space science itself.
Anaconda said;
“I susect the overt hostility directed my way and the ‘Electric Universe’ way, here, reflects the fear that the train of scientific evidence that supports EU will only keep gaining speed.
That would explain the fear & loathing to a “T”.”
Actually, there is very little scientific evidence to support EU. Magnetic fields and plasmas are a commonplace throughout the universe, however, they are minor compared to the influence of gravity on astronomical objects.
Evidence. Most of the plasma you talk about are inside stars, yet, most stars are spheres, or if rotating, ellipsoids. Clearly, the forces of gravity make their known shapes, and it was gravity that formed the stars in the first place. Therefore, the observed behaviour of stars is mostly by gravitational forces, while the number of EU’s electrical components remain significant but are quite minor compared to gravity. They are far from “critical”, as you suggest.
I can see why so many here are so overtly hostile, because you show little evidence of a scientific approach to the subject and are just attempting to win the argument by shouting the loudest.
Perhaps a black hole has already been placed in your own head, which might explain the vacuum when it comes to knowledge.
Anaconda,
Thanks for these posts, because again you drag out the usual claptrap like the raving lunatic you are.
If there ever was an example of a jackass*, your it.
Homme du Sud is absolutely right, because his postulate proves your a ignorant jackass. How else does it explain your ignorance even with the basic science?
as to saying;
“I susect the overt hostility directed my way and the ‘Electric Universe’ way, here, reflects the fear that the train of scientific evidence that supports EU will only keep gaining speed.”
In your dreams. You have been shown on numerous occasions to be a total fraud, dishonest in what you say, and being unable to support your claims – except through clearly dodgy sites or flagrantly misrepresenting legitimate ones. It has already been shown that your aims (by your own admission and words) that you are attempting to get recruits to the crazy EU cause, misleading to believe in mostly unproven nonsense.
Such wanton and repeated deceit has just made you look like a total fool, with direct evidence showing you have neither the mathematical or science background to remotely prove what you say.
I think you already know EU is mostly nonsense, and that it is supported by mislead individuals who can’t just tell nor understand, the real difference between electronic world and common everyday astrophysical phenomena.
IN THE END, YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
* “jackass’ meaning a really stupid person.
Anaconda
Boy, oh boy. Salacious must be really pissed off with you.
Yet I do think he has a point though.
Wild rants by known people with established agendas are not very convincing are they?
Unfortunately, this blatant EU stance of yours leaves not much room for manoeuvring for anyone who is logical and sensible to consider your somewhat distorted scientific viewpoint – let alone debate the issue. If you had any useful scientific training, you would instantly realise that having a closed mind to any alternatives to EU makes you quite incapable of contributing usefully to improving our astrophysical or scientific knowledge!
Why?
A closed mind will totally ignore some the evidence just because it disagrees with what they understand or know.
An open one will openly argue they points using the evidence or theory available, and draw the conclusion – stating what the conclusion means, why it is better than previous theory, then suggesting alternative ways of proving their conclusion is valid.
EU just pretends it knows better. The closed minds of its supporters is clearly evident, because they don’t bother to try and understand the overall astrophysical theory nor its implications. They are generally ideologists, whose held ideas are just visionary speculation, mostly characterised by ignoring basic and well-established theory already based on solid observations. (I.e. One has only to look at the distortions of ideas using important the stellar astrophysical H-R Diagrams and to see how EU tries to explain stellar evolution. Most don’t understand it let alone comprehend its implications. All they want it to be is wrong, in the really desperate hope it can be supplanted with their unwarranted EU doctrines. )
Using the useful advice of Occam’s razor, says you have only very slim possibility of being right, let alone, having say anything with the necessary relevancy here.
Therefore anybody unfortunately believing what you say is true, leads the only to the conclusion that they they have been either deceived by a charlatan with an agenda, or they honest lack the necessary logic skills to make their own conclusions.
So we must only judge, based on the evidence, that what you say here is not at all factually or scientifically based.
Then until, you yourself, Anaconda can show evidence of your seemingly unfounded statements, whatever you say is quite irrelevant. QED – quod erat demonstrandum.
You guys prove my point.
If my comments were the ravings of a lunatic, they would not be worth responding to.
One does not respond to the ravings of a lunatic for good reason.
By the way, it was NASA that stated it was “CRITICAL” to study electric charges, eleectric fields, and electric currents.
I understand its personal with you guys — it’s unfortunate — it shouldn’t be that way, but your statements make it pretty clear, such is the case.
Now, perhaps, if you guys really did treat my comments as being from a raving lunatic and ignored them that would be best.
Jon Hanford wrote: “I haven’t read the paper myself, and readily admit I don’t have the expertise to thoughtfully weigh in as to its veracity. I doubt very much that Anaconda has a) read and b) comprehended the substance in this paper.”
Don’t have the expertise???
Hnaford, you are defending this garbage. I don’t have to read it to know it’s garbage”
“…the Higgs Boson may be protecting itself from discovery, and doing so from the future via backward causality.”
“the Higgs Boson may be protecting itself from discovery”???
And from the future no less???
Sorry, Hanford, one doesn’t have to read the specifics to know that is garbage.
You on the other hand don’t have the “expertise” to comment.
Are they still wiping baby food off your chin while you sit in the high chair?
Who burbs you?
Laugh out loud 🙂
Hanford drinks the Kool-Aid deeply.
Is it red or purple Kool-Aid?
At least Crowell is smart enough to know this is a pile of crap.
Hanford has just shown himself to be a lemming headed toward the cliff…
AnaCONda
How stupid are you?
You have no idea what you are talking about, and this is made worst by you fraudulent and wanton deceptive tactics.
If you knew anything you would offer intelligent contributions to the debate. All you can offer is obviously wrong EU clap-trap, and uneducated and off the mark guesses.
The only pile of crap here is you, jackass!!
Basles nut-jobs like AnaCONda is happening everywhere these days. Just because someone doesn’t understand some underlying theory doesn’t mean it is made up or inconsequential.
The sudden rise of pseudo-science is becoming a serious issue, as neither democracy or popular opinion applies to the scientific method nor in how science operates. Unfortunately, it gets in the way by the influence of “the mob”, which directs diverts the funding of science to less productive outcomes or new advances.
The danger is of course groups with other agendas, like intelligent design, non-scientific biology (I.e. cloning or stem cells), or with the even crazier electronic universe proponents.
Furthermore, the education system or the media doesn’t help either. All it tends to do is dumb down science for the masses without understanding the observations, methods, or conclusions.
This give the crackpot, like the idiot anti-science jerk AnaCONda, air to cause trouble – stirring up problems when none exist.
Let’s not mince words here, he has an agenda, it has been exposed as a con artist. I.e. He is a jackass!
Anaconda says, At least Crowell is smart enough to know this is a pile of crap.” If he means I recognize EU as a pile of crap, he is right, but I suspect otherwise. Please don’t put words in my mouth!
Quasi-science in the long run may simply win the day. Our ability to get explicit data on cosmology or high energy physics far in excess of the TeV range is becoming less direct. We are forced into working with inferences of interferences as we push our knowledge into scales that are far beyond ordinary experience and practicality. It is of course my desire to see us push further for at least another 50 or 100 years so we can get at least an approximate effective theory of quantum cosmology/gravity, and to be able to benchmark it with some data. Maybe we can understand the origin of life as well, or come to some mathematical paradigm of what life is or how it operates. Maybe consciousness, maybe … ?
Yet surely as the universe is eternally expanding, getting colder and darker, just as the sun will increase in entropy and die, so too will our ability to keep this up. We may over time become increasingly unable to fathom things, and more importantly measure them, particularly if cosmology becomes projected into a growing Tegmarkian vastness of uncertainty. So just as entropy increases we may see quasi-science fill the void, along with various religious ideas ranging from new age gobbledygook to creationism, and PU/EU stuff might fit in the mix.
I would not be surprised if it is not long before our modern scientific age becomes mired in a fog of uncertainty and quibbles, just as did the ancient world, and what takes the stage before long is mystical or pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
LC
I just copy my post from the “crescent bubble” thread:
And I quote myself, again, but this time from this thread:
Anything on this, Anaconda?
Or have you changed your tactics and avoid any form of “scientific” debate, just playing the surprised victim that cannot understand what is happening to him?
@ DrFlimmer:
DrFlimmer wrote: “[H]ave you changed your tactics and avoid any form of ‘scientific’ debate, just playing the surprised victim…?”
No, I’m willing to debate, but I see no reason to respond to personal abuse…besides…personal abuse isn’t designed to further a discussion, anyhow.
Personal abuse is designed to stiffle discussion, polarize, and make the thread as unpleasant as possible for the average reader — so they will skip it.
That’s where Crumb is — stiffle discussion and turn away people.
(* Note: Is that what the moderators want?)
It isn’t a set of tactics born out of confidence, or real interest in scientific debate.
You see, he thought he had me run-off, but no, and you see his petulant reaction.
Anyhow, Dr.Flimmer, let’s take your argument from the top:
DrFlimmer wrote: “Just because there are currents in space is no ‘proof’ of EU claims. And just to claim that any current in space must be a proof of EU, is just nonsense.”
Yes, that’s true, it’s not proof, but it is the starting foundation of a chain of scientific evidence.
in Science there is no “proof” there is only evidence.
DrFlimmer wrote: “…the role it [electric currents] plays is on details – not large scales.”
Hmmm?
What about the helio current sheet?
It is the biggest structure in the solar system.
DrFlimmer wrote: “You have no large scale electic fields…”
Careful there DrFlimmer, an ‘electric field’ is present wherever charged particle are present. An ‘electric field’ is the expression of the electromotive force, which is present where ionized free electrons and ions are, such as in space plasma.
The helio current sheet is a large electric field as well as an electric current.
Remember, charged particles in ordered motion is an electric current.
DrFlimmer wrote: “…that [no presence of electric fields] is also shown by in-situ experiments in near-earth space.”
False.
There are electric fields present in the Van Allen belts. Why? there are free electrons and ions in the belts and wherever there are free electrons and ions there is electromotive force (the force that attacts electrons and ions together), also, known in aggragate as an electric field.
DrFlimmer wrote: “The sun is not on any electric potential, on average the sun is not charged (also called “overall neutral”) – otherwise we would see an electric field, which we don’t! That is contrary to a basic EU claim.”
Think again.
NASA states:
“Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun’s hot, ionized gases. We observe a variety of flows on the Sun’s surface and within its interior. Nearly all of these flows may contribute in one way or another to the production of the Sun’s magnetic field.”
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml
NASA does not agree with you, DrFlimmer.
DrFlimmer: “otherwise we would see an electric field [in the Sun]…”
As NASA states very specifically there are electric currents in the Sun and with electric currents come electric fields.
DrFlimmer, you need to brush up on what constitutes an electric field.
Now, DrFlimmer mentions, “also called ‘overall neutral’…”
No, it called quasi-neutrality, and there is a big difference.
Neutral is neutral gass, no free electrons and ions. Quasi-neutral plasma has free electrons and ions, and thus an electric field.
As Irvin Langmuir, 1932 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry, noted, along with coining the term “Plasma”, plasma is self-organizing that’s why he named it plasma because it acted like living tissue, specifically blood plasma. This self-organizng tendency is because of the electromotive force present between free electrons and ions in space plasma, any plasma.
If there is plasma, there is an electric field — it’s that simple and that black and white.
Let’s see, DrFlimmer, you wanted debate and everything you said was wrong.
(Parenthetic note: I don’t hold you, DrFlimmer, responsible for your ignorance of space plasma or the basics of electromagnetism, your teachers are responsible for that. Nor do I hold you responsible for your ignorance of the Sun’s electrical dynamics, again, I hold your teachers responsible for that.
You need to understand the basics of electromagnetism, like the electromotive force that is present anywhere there are free electrons and ion present, which in aggragate consitutes an electric field. Sadly, your teachers don’t explain that physical reality, either out of their own ignorance or out of a desire to focus on the gravity “only” model.
Once you have a foundation of the basic principles, the rest will be much easier, but until you do, you will continue to make unfounded statements.
I seriously hope you do take the time to exercise independent study and thought.
The NASA website on Sun and Earth Background is highly informative.
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
A must read for you and the other interlocutors interested in actual discussion.
I strongly advise you review it and familiarize yourself with the principles discussed…unless you think NASA is lying, as you did after talking with your teachers.
Again, DrFlimmer, you need to understand the principles of electromotive force. That is the base foundation for understanding electromagnetism, space plasma, and the structures and processes that emanate from this most basic of fundamental forces in the Universe that is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.)
The same procedure as every time……
Anaconda, don’t put things in my mouth that I didn’t say.
I talked about large scale things. There is no continous electric field between the sun and the interstellar environment.
Something what you repeatedly told us is that the sun is on a potential of about 10*10^9 Volts. So there is a potential difference between the sun and the interstellar medium. That is what you told us, right?
If this is, indeed, what you told us, then there must be a measurable electric field that comes from the sun, extends past the earth orbit and the heliosphere, right into the ISM. But SUCH a LARGE electric field is not measured.
What you read in my words and what you talked about in your last posts are small scale electric fields between charged particles. Of course, there is an electric field between an electron and a proton, of course there is. But it only exists right BETWEEN those particles and not very far away from it (it drops rather quickly to zero (a dipole field)).
There is naturally an electric field between the nucleus and the electrons of an atom – but who calls an atom to be charged? Noone would do this, not even you, I guess.
And shall I talk about the definition of a current, again? Because there is an important thing to consider:
An electric current is the RELATIVE motion of charged particles. You need electrons and protons with different velocities, because otherwise I could transform myself into the system of rest of the moving particles and the motion of both species would be gone, and, hence, there would be no more current!
This has implications for plasmas: If both species of your plasma move with the same velocity, than there is no current and no magnetic field will be produced. This is important! If electrons and protons move collectively, there is no current.
To sum this up: I was not entirely false, you just misrepresented what I said. And that is something you also did many times in the past.
I have to admit, Anaconda, you really do deserve a prize for grotesque hypocrisy combined with chutzpah …
Let’s see:
Is that the one which worships Alfvén?
The same Alfvén whose definition of “electrical current” differs radically from your own, personal, one?
The same playbook which declares “There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel”, thus declaring astronomy impossibile (as a science)?
Sadly, however, you will not understand anything that might be discovered … if only because you have not yet acknowledged that your own, personal, definition of “electrical current” renders almost everything you write meaningless gibberish (at least it does so if you require consistency).
Weird … why, then, have you yourself not taken the time and trouble to study these very things?
Oh? I haven’t read anything by you which declares that the entire body of Alfvén’s published papers, all of Peratt’s, etc, etc, etc is also garbage.
I mean, clearly none of them use the ONE TRUE definition of electric current (i.e. yours), so all of it must be garbage, right?
Okey dokey … why have you not – publicly, vehemently, loudly – declared all of Alfvén’s, Peratt’s, (etc) work to be rubbish (because it is all based on a false definition of electric current)?
Why have you not – publicly, vehemently, loudly – declared all of astronomy to be non-science (because it ignores Scott’s penetrating critique)? Or, if you accept that data from the Hubble Space Telescope (etc) are valid, why have you not – publicly, vehemently, loudly – denounced Don Scott as a peddler of nonsense?
(for those who don’t know, here, again, is Scott’s denunciation of astronomy, as a science: “There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel”)
Anaconda said;
“I seriously hope you do take the time to exercise independent study and thought.”
Ha Ha. Funniest thing I’ve read on years. What a hypocrite! Clearly you never apply these same rules to yourself. Most of the time you go of half-cocked, making wild grandiose sweeping statements about chemistry, nuclear physics, physics, astrophysics, and time after time, you are shown wanton in knowledge and completely wrong with what you say.
The crux of the problem here is you DON’T THINK.
As to saying ; “I’m willing to debate.” Are you kidding us! According to you you want to be treated as an equal, but you continues spitting your deceitful venom of the mostly unjustified, and already rejected radical views of the plasma electric universe.
Really. How do you argue with someone who already has an pre-established agenda? You never listen or learn from others who know better, but instead just want to cover the same old ground, coming back to the ridiculous rhetoric and premise that science is somehow in “crisis”, just because you say so!
Worst you deliberately and dishonestly misrepresent your position. You don’t debate, you just try and dictate nonsense based on generally totally wrong assumptions and dishonest deception. Then when you convincingly lose the argument, then you pretend become the victim; and those arguing against you are wrong.
What make you so certain in your views, eh? Considering your lack of a scientific or mathematical background, what gives you the right to debate on things you obviously know little about? Does you audacity know no bounds?
It is really more despicable is you claim to be the pitiful victim of abuse. The truth in the matter is it is you who is “rough shodding” over already well established science, and then treat others, who do know better, with utter contempt.
Based on your many words over months, you simply don’t know what you are talking about.
I do promise you. Eventually you’re gonna be permanently buried for your gross distortions and manipulations! Better still. You have and will deserve it!
I do find it amusing when NASA research of the sun and solar system astronomy is presented as the end-all be-all arbiter of current astrophysics (even if Anaconda is misinformed on several of these issues) , yet not a word about NASAs research efforts in areas of black holes, dark energy, dark matter, big bang cosmologies, gravity waves, etc., all of which he rejects. Why accept any research from NASA if they got it wrong on soooo many other areas of astrophysics? Talk about hypocrisy.
“…unless you think NASA is lying…”
Jon Hanford et al,
Anaconda says: “I don’t hold you, DrFlimmer, responsible for your ignorance of space plasma or the basics of electromagnetism, your teachers are responsible for that. Nor do I hold you responsible for your ignorance of the Sun’s electrical dynamics, again, I hold your teachers responsible for that.”
He complains about others insulting him yet he throws out comments like the above. His hubris leads him to think he understands better than those who have actually studied the subjects.
That nasa dynamo page linked by Anaconda make no mention of electric fields. The question is about an electric field extending beyond the sun, not internal electric currents. EU promotes the idea of a charged sun with an extended electric field, where is the evidence for this? The electric field in a quasineutral plasma is over distances within the body of plasma. But at distances beyond the body (at the orbit of a planet for example) the charges cancel out and thus a neutral charge.
@ND: I think you have not studied the Anaconda version of EU in sufficient detail.
You see, unlike in classical electromagnetism, the MHD of Alfvén, the plasma physics of Peratt, etc, etc, etc, in electromagnetism per Anaconda, a movement of electric charges constitutes a current.
You may want to take a few minutes for that to sink in.
Yep, if a blob of (net charge neutral) plasma moves, there is a current!
So, by definition the solar wind is a current (or contains currents), even if you could show that for ever last electron passing a given point in a given time there is a proton.
Radical huh? Even, dare one say, paradigm shaking?
Now it may not come as a surprise to you – or to most other readers – to learn that Anaconda has apparently done no work to reformulate Maxwell’s equations, incorporating the ONE TRUE definition of current (i.e. his); after all, enthusiastic proponents of EU ideas are not known for the quantitative skills.
However, it may come as a surprise to learn that – apparently – Anaconda has kept this amazing new definition to himself, and not shared it with other EU proponents.
Oh, and if I am not mistaken, Anaconda has not – yet – openly declared Alfvén’s life work (on plasma physics) to be fatally flawed (because he, Alfvén, used the wrong definition of current his entire life).
@ Nereid:
What is the definition of the electromotive force?
@A: I don’t know; is the term used much at all these days? After all, it is rather misleading, isn’t it, seeing as it isn’t a force at all …
I suspect you’ll find it has one meaning when applied to electrical circuits (with batteries and such), and a somewhat different meaning in thermodynamics, …
Did you have a particular instance of its use in mind?
“What is the definition of the electromotive force?”
“A difference in potential that tends to give rise to an electric current, which fires a projectile at the head of the numskull, who holds crazy EU ideas that are contrary to observation.”
or is it “the force required to remove electrodes from the forehead of someone after undergoing electroshock convulsive therapy?”
Might explain the lack of general cognition by our snakeman here 🙂
AnaCONda’s quandary is the dilemma of the Cognitive Maze, often described “as being trapped in a mental compulsion.” I.e. “Once I begin to measure what my position is, I have changed it.”
Then the guilt of; “If I am not really worried about this, then why do I keep thinking about it?”
Somehow “electromotive force” and the manifestation of “black holes” is somehow related – but somehow i need to define it?
But AnaCONda. Is this relevant or are you missing something?
(Sorry. The answer is not EU, as I suppose, it just doesn’t quite fit in a suitcase.)
@ Nereid:
“What is the definition of the electromotive force?”
Nereid: “I don’t know”
What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
AnaCONda’s guide to EU, (Rule No, 241…)
However Anaconda, if you ask all the wrong questions, you are like a dead duck in a thunderstorm. Such overwhelming anxiety to be right all the time must be just so important to – pity much of what you say doesn’t match the real world. Such is the nature of one lost in delusion.
In the end. Does all of this really matter?
(Note: You can also easily get rid of anxiety another way. Just stop thinking!)
AnaCONda said;
“What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Oh dear. He need even more anxiety relief!
Could the answer be the missing fifth or sixth forces? You know, anti-strong force and the “sucked in force”?
(…and I thought all this time that electrons and positive ions didn’t like each other!)
The question stands unanswered.
@ AnaCONda:
“Can you float in a Faraday Cage against gravitational forces?”
AnaCONda: “I don’t know”
“Well what is term for the relationship between EU and gravitation?”
Whatever the answer to this question is, it is NOT “electromotive force” (a.k.a. emf)!
Electrostatics 101:
The force, F, between point charge q1 and point charge q2, separated by distance r, is:
F = q1q2/r^2
(if the units of F, q, and r are chosen such that the constant of proportionality is 1).
This is Coulomb’s Law, and the force is called the electrostatic force (between the two point charges) … oh, and this is just the magnitude (force, being a vector quantity, requires a direction as well as a magnitude, to be fully specified).
There’s more to electrostatics than this, of course, but in any case it’s an approximation … and its domain of applicability is environments in which there are no magnetic fields or electric currents (actually, that any such that there are are constant – do not vary with time – or change only very slowly).
Where, pray tell, did you get the idea that what Coulomb’s Law is about is emf?
Or have you decided to rewrite electrostatics as well as electromagnetism?
AnaCONda said
“The question stands unanswered.”
…and that about sums up EU. plasma and the rest these crazy notions.
Of corse the other questions are why do you persist in these irrelevant nonsense? Perhaps that is an even better question! 🙂
AnaCONda’s new avatar, perhaps?
M. FARADAY II
I clearly haven’t had enough coffee today …
… I just realised that Anaconda very likely thinks the emf is a force!
ROFL!!
Dude, emf is not a force (it’s units are the same as those of voltage; namely energy per charge).
Oh the embarrassment … to think how you berated Dr Flimmer for his poor grasp of electromagnetism, when you yourself didn’t even know that emf is not a force!?!?!
Now where’s the ‘hang one’s head in shame’ smilie …
“What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Nereid: “Whatever the answer to this question is”
Please answer the question.
@ Nereid
I wonder if he (AnaCONda) really knows the difference between 3D vector fields E(x,y,z,t) and B(x,y,z,t), or even what a magnetostatic field is?
Oh I forget, pity. Mathematics isn’t his strong suit, and it is all designed to bamboozle the science. Even more the pity he knows nothing of tensors or the use of complex numbers (i) – you now those imaginary numbers – bamboozling all the various fields laws like Gauss, Faraday or Ampere-Maxwell’s laws. Mathematics is SO inconvenient !!
So according to Anaconda, then Gauss’s Laws for electrostatics and magnostatics must be; rho/ epsilon0 = 0, where rho is the charge density and epsilon0 is the permittivity. Who needs E or B – they don’t matter at all!!
Next he (AnaCONda) will be professing to have perfect knowledge of geometrodynamics., and show off that he knows what he’s on about!
You can’t keep down those all-knowing geniuses!!
@Neried
Anaconda probably thinks emf is;
Eclipse Modeling Framework
Electronic Music Foundation
English Music Festival ?
how about the
Energy Model Forum
or, ah! even
<A HREF="http://www.emfbroadcasting.com/"Educational Media Foundation.
They surely would make him a life member!
@Anaconda;
A proton, neutron, and electron went out to dinner one night. After a luxurious meal, the waiter brought the check to the proton and the electron. The neutron was perplexed as to why the waiter didn’t bring him his check. So, he summoned the waiter to the table and asked him about it.
The waiter explained to the neutron, “For you, there’s no charge!”
Nothing beats a lame kid’s joke for another lame kid. Youbetcha!
Nereid?
AnaCONda?
ATT: Nereid
“What is the definition of the electromotive force?”
Nereid: “I don’t know”
What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
@ Nereid:
“What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Nereid: “Whatever the answer to this question is”
Please answer the question.
“What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Well it is either, gravitation, electromagnetism, or the weak force. or the strong force.
It also depends on the number of colour-charged quarks in the positive ions, or if in a neutron or black hole, the attraction could be non-existent, as free electrons and positive ions are very few inside these very dense objects. I.e. Mostly neutrons.
But if you must know, it is probably various mediating elementary particle knowns as bosons . These could be nonrenormalizable gravitons, W or Z particles, or even light. (They probaly cannot be gluons of the strong force, though, as they attract only positive charges.)
Strange question though? What has this to do with black holes in a suitcase?
@AnaCONda
Nereid: “Whatever the answer to this question is””
Anaconda; “What is the term for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Nereid Please answer the question.
Anaconda; Don’t know, what was the question?
Who’s on first?
Dunno…
@Nereid
What’s on second?
From probably one of the best books on electrodynamics:
Griffiths: Introduction to electrodynamics, 3rd edition, internetional edition.
chapter 7.1.2 Electromotive Force
page 292-293
“[…] The upshot of all this is that there are really two forces involved in driving current around a circuit: the sourcs, f_s, which is ordinarily confined to one portion of the loop (a battery, say), and the electrostatic force, which serves to smooth out the flow and communicate the influence of the source to distant parts of the circuit:
f=f_s+E.
The physical agency responsible for f_s can be one of many different things: in a battery it’s a chemical force; […]. Whatever the mechanism, its net effect is determined by the line integral of f around the circuit:
emf = (closed line integral) f * dl = (closed line integral) f_s * dl.
(Because of [the fact that a closed line integral over an electrostatic field equals zero], it doesn’t matter whether you use f or f_s.
emf is called the electromotive force,[…], of the circuit. It’s a lousy term, since this os not a force at all — it’s the integral of a force per unit charge.
[…]”
So, the emf is just something that gives rise to a flow of charges, or rise to an electostatic field. It is much alike to a potential difference. Indeed, as the Griffiths continues, in a “resistancless battery” the emf equals the potential gap V.
Btw: I am not sure that there is a term for the emf in the German language, since I don’t know that I ever encountered something like this….
What is the term for a person who doesn’t known what is the attraction is between a free electron and a positive ion?
Jackass.
Is it such a hard question?
Btw: Nereid DID answer your second question, Anaconda! Just read a little further below your quote….
She answered the questions about “free charges” in her post from 2:16pm
So, DrFlimmer, after reading your exhibition.
Am I right to say the electromotive force is the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
@ Dr. Flimmer,
Seriously
Anaconda said: “I don’t hold you, DrFlimmer, responsible for your ignorance of space plasma or the basics of electromagnetism, your teachers are responsible for that. Nor do I hold you responsible for your ignorance of the Sun’s electrical dynamics, again, I hold your teachers responsible for that.”
How disgusting is this for insult?
Help him, then he kicks you back!
Anaconda total lack of respect for others is really deplorable. Why help an individual who doesn’t have a clue of wither EU, astrophysics, mathematics or even really basic physics?
Total Mockery of this foolish individual is really the only thing left IMO!
no.
the attraction between an electron and an ion (they need not to be free – in an atom the same is also true) is the coulomb force.
emf is something “mechanical” that does not need to have its offspring from electromagnetic things. As I see it, emf transforms different kind of “energies” into motion of (charged) particles. This does not exclude, but need not necessarily to be electrodynamic forces.
And again: The emf is NO force.
@Anaconda said;
“Am I right to say the electromotive force is the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?”
Dr, Flimmer said;
“emf is called the electromotive force,[…], of the circuit. It’s a lousy term, since this is not a force at all — it’s the integral of a force per unit charge.”
Forgotten how to read, have you?? Geez!
My answer is directed to Anaconda, and not to HSBC – just to make sure!
@ DrFlimmer:
Nereid Said, October 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm:
“Whatever the answer to this question is”
Nereid did not provide a “term” for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
Nereid provided an exhibition of mathematical equations and anotations.
Is there no “term” or word for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
Apologies DrFlimmer. None of my responses here are at anyone but Anaconda. I tell you. It is so frustrating. He simply doesn’t listen or just forgets what he is on about.
If it were about learning or understanding something, his behaviour would be tolerable. However, evidence shows, he is not interested in discussion and has alliterative motives. It is all about spin and propaganda. Answer a question, and you get back 1000 distortions.
In my mind irrational attacks is just mimicking his usual strategy, where he “shouts” over everyone else so he can get the most attention. His sole aim to interfere with rational discussion so he can promote his alternative agenda. I’m really sick of it!
@ DrFlimmer, the answer for what is the “term” for attraction between a free electron and a positive ion is electromotive force.
It is amazing. Just type in Google “attraction electrons protons”
The tenth item you get is this from the “Absolute Motion Institute““The Myth of Gravitational Attraction”
It concludes;
“Both gravitational attraction, proposed by Newton, and “curved” space, used by Einstein to explain this attraction, are such totally preposterous concepts that it is difficult to understand how they were able to gain any kind of acceptance in the scientific community.”
Anaconda is after a similar “wedge”, where he can state notions like;
Who does this sound like – AnaCONda methinks….
Just say the “attraction” is gravitation, and he will lay into his usual anti-science mumbo-jumbo.
On past experience, can you really trust him. No.
* Note: The site has no links to anywhere to contact, except by cutting the HTML web address back to “// circion-theory com” (add the dot) It is just another fraudulent site of anti-science. Pathetic.
Anaconda said;
“@ DrFlimmer, the answer for what is the “term” for attraction between a free electron and a positive ion is electromotive force.”
So Anaconda NOW thinks knows the answer, or is he just using this as a ploy to get his desperately needed “gravitational” response in a slip up here?
Clearly the motive here is he just wants to talk about “gravitons” and the presumed “failure” of science to find them – desperately looking for some new avenue to exploit and misrepresent.
Anaconda is a transparent as glass!
He’s done it before, so let’s do it again.
At least he is consistent!
Nereid said;
“Dude, emf is not a force (it’s units are the same as those of voltage; namely energy per charge).”
Now he, according to you is wrong.
Question: So why ask this question, if you already know better?
Deception, no less?
Gee, I didn’t know it was such a hard question.
Crumb, your link distinguishes between gravity attraction and “electrostatic” attraction.
That is fine.
What I’m asking is the “term” for the attraction between a free electron and a positive ion?
Crumb, your link calls this attraction “electrostatic attraction”.
This is also known as the electromotive force.
Anaconda said;
“Crumb, your link calls this attraction “electrostatic attraction”.
This is also known as the electromotive force.”
Errr. that three of us now…. again NO it isn’t!
That silly link, sorry, is an absolute joke!
The answer are the bosons, more precisely, gauge bosons. Gauge theory produces force through virtual particles (bosons) interacting between elementary particles (fermions).
The ‘force’ between fermions is technically called “interaction”
To quote roughly what it is all about, I quote this accurate and useful wikipedia;
“The modern quantum mechanical view of the fundamental forces other than gravity is that particles of matter (fermions) do not directly interact with each other, but rather carry a charge, and exchange virtual particles (gauge bosons), which are the interaction carriers or force mediators. For example, photons mediate the interaction of electric charges, and gluons mediate the interaction of color charges…. The exchange of bosons always carries energy and momentum between the fermions, thereby changing their speed and direction”
Suggest you do read a bit on so-called “Fundamental interactions” (even the wiki page of this is not too bad) and some of the basics of quantum mechanics, before again going off half-cocked again on your distorted views of EU.
Sorry. None of us here should be required to duties to babysit when you should be finding this all out for yourself. If possible, keep an open mind (your biggest deterrent to learning)
Anaconda,
Nereid answered your question on October 28th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Why are you ignoring the answer? Is this deliberate? Here’s a choice quote from her answer:
“This is Coulomb’s Law, and the force is called the electrostatic force (between the two point charges)”
You’re conflating all sorts of EM concepts here.
Is it so difficult to read? Coulomb Force is one possible answer.
No. Get used to it.
There’s a very nice post by BAUT Forum mod HenrickOlsen that I’d like to quote (holler if you’d like a link to it)
(It’s in response to BAUT Forum member Tensor’s asking if anyone would care to explain this line in his sig: “The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. – Donald Knuth”)
This is not new to readers of UT story comments; IVAN3MAN introduced it at least once before (and others too perhaps).
We can see something of this happening here … Anaconda’s question about the term for a particular ‘thing’ is ambiguous, if only because he hasn’t given any context.
Accordingly, my answer – referencing electrostatics and Coulomb’s Law – and HSBC’s – referencing QED – are both completely accurate, yet obviously very different.
Leave aside – if one can – the venom, vitriol, bombast, etc in Anaconda’s comments, and ask yourself this question: is it possible to have a meaningful conversation, without at least acknowledging the existence of ‘lies to children’?
Well, it turns out that Nereid provides decent answer:
“I suspect you’ll find it has one meaning when applied to electrical circuits (with batteries and such), and a somewhat different meaning in thermodynamics, …”
Yes, there are two terms, but both are used in the study of electricity, not thermodynamics per se.
And I’ll stand corrected, Nereid did provide one term that is used for the attraction between free electrons and ions.
Wikipedia entry for electrostatics:
“Electrostatic phenomena arise from the forces that electric charges exert on each other. Such forces are described by Coulomb’s law. Even though electrostatically induced forces seem to be rather weak, the electrostatic force between e.g. an electron and a proton, that together make up a hydrogen atom, is about 40 orders of magnitude stronger than the gravitational force acting between them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics
This attraction between a free electron and ion gives rise to an electric field.
Again from the Wikipedia entrry:
“The electric field
The electric field (in units of volts per meter) at a point is defined as the force (in newtons) per unit charge (in coulombs) on a charge at that point: [mathematical equations that don’t transfer]
From this definition and Coulomb’s law, it follows that the magnitude of the electric field E created by a single point charge Q is: [mathematical equations that don’t transfer]”
But electromotive force is also used to describe the attraction between a free electron and an ion.
(Cont.)
See Basic Electricity, by Van Valtkenburgh:
Under the heading: “What EMF (Electromotive force) is
[…] “it is this potential difference that makes electrons move and thus work or be used to generate other forms of energy. ”
“The unit of potential difference is the volt. A volt is defined as the potential difference necessary to obtain 1 joule of work (EMF) — electron moving force — or potential difference of volt when this happens.”
“We measure potential difference or emf in volts and we call the measured difference voltage. (And because emf is measured in volts, emf is often called , or equated with voltage.) The symbol that we use for voltage is “E” or “V”.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=vmg1UKsTntAC&pg=PT67&lpg=PT67&dq=electromotive+force+work+separate&source=bl&ots=BqEjTA-hVU&sig=1KVjKSMpdjvoZ03pZGEwndu7dDg&hl=en&ei=XOPoSpzmNIvYtgOx1qHsCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=electromotive%20force%20work%20separate&f=false
Clearly, electromotive force is a term that refers to the energy of attraction between free electrons and ions, but it wil be conceded that coulomb tends to be the term used in physics and electromotive force is used more often in electrical engineering.
And, yes, “force” is an appropriate term because, “…whenever a force of any kind causes motion, work is done.”
(Cont.)
Lest not readers think electromotive force is a term never used by astrophysicists, think again.
Eugene N. Parker who coined the term, “Solar wind”, and the Parker spiral of the helio current sheet is named in his honor, stated this:
“…magnetic fields appear only in association with electric currents and in association with time varying electric fields…In the laboratory we create static magnetic fields by driving an electric current through a coil of wire. The emf [electromotive force] driving the current is the sourse of the energy that creates the magnetic field, so emf [electromotive force] and current are clearly the CAUSE (emphasis original) of the magnetic field.”
Conversations on electric and magnetic fields in the cosmos (page 25)
http://books.google.com/books/p/princeton?id=7gJ_i3CTcpQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false
As Dr. Parker makes clear emf (electromotive force) is a term that is used by astrophyicists.
What does this dicussion about terms boil down to?
That there is an attraction bweeen free electrons and ions and as Shakespeare wrote: “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet.”
@Anaconda.
…and your point??
What has this to do with black holes fitting into suitcases?
Absolutely nothing.
No wonder no one here is interested in what you say. It always has a motive. Are you so desperate to be accepted, when you most of the time act like a jackass? Show some improved respect, please.
Electromotive force is NOT the means that creates actually force, does it? Again QED explains the “interaction” of the bosons and the fermions.
Really. How does the positive ion know the electron is actually there?
@A: do you know the difference between a force and “potential difference”?
More basically, do you know what dimensional analysis is?
A quick primer …
Time has units of time, let’s call it T.
Length has units of length, let’s call it L.
Area – being a length by a length – has units of LxL, or L^2.
Velocity (or speed) – as in km/hour, or m/sec – has units of length per time, or LT^-1.
Mass has units of mass, let’s call it M.
Now you may remember Newton, and you may also remember F = ma
… if so, then the units of force are MLT^-2.
In an earlier comment I said that the units of emf are energy per charge; we need a new unit, charge … let’s call it Q (I’ll leave it to you to derive the units of energy; HINT you need only M, L, and T).
Can you work out what the units of emf are?
Do the units of emf look anything at all like the units of force?
Now take another – closer – look at your sources (good for you that you took the time to go search for them) … is there any ambiguity? Does any source confuse voltage (potential difference, emf) with force?
DrFlimmer states: “So, the emf is just something that gives rise to a flow of charges, or rise to an electostatic field.”
Just “something”???
No, it is the attractive force, yes, force, that causes motion between electrons and ions.
DrFlimmer wrote: “Btw: I am not sure that there is a term for the emf in the German language, since I don’t know that I ever encountered something like this….”
I appreciate the candor — it’s something you should have learned in your plasma physics class.
Nereid states: “Whatever the answer to this question is, it is NOT “electromotive force” (a.k.a. emf)! ”
Dr. Eugene N. Parker would disagree with you since he used the term “emf” in his book.
Of course, the attraction between a free electron and an ion, and the aggregate, thereof (an electric field), will be present wherever free electrons and ions are present including space plasma.
Oh, and as to lying to children, interesting that Nereid would bring that up out of the blue.
Perhaps, Nereid feels comfortable with the idea of “lies to children” in her statements to laymen because afterall aren’t they really children as for as understanding?
Using superscripts:
L^2 -> L2
LT^-1 -> LT-1
MLT^-2 -> MLT-2
well, THAT didn’t work! 🙁
H2O H2O
Does that work?
Nope; how about H2O
Or H[sub]2[/sub]O
OK, I give up … does anyone know how to generate sub- and super-scripts?
Indeed he does, Anaconda, indeed he does (use the term emf in his book) …
However, as even the extract you quoted makes clear, emf is not a force (do you know so little about even electricity that you do not appreciate the narrow meaning of the word “driving”?)
Anaconda
I do suggest you read some recent arvix articles on EU phenomena, which are inder Physics>Astrophysics>astro-ph new, being articles dated Thu(sday), 29 Oct 2009. (http: // arvix.org )There is a nice variety of articles here, and these might focus some of your ideas, and might correct a number of them.
Read especially, The magnetic field of the evolved star W43A, which explains the difficulties and problems with general field measurements.
Nereid take up your complaints with Dr. Eugene Parker and Van Valkenburgh.
I got better things to do than listen to your unfounded complaints. Better yet, why don’t you READ Valkenburgh and see what he says. Get back to me with quotes not your general comments.
The NASA website on Sun and Earth Background is highly informative.
http://stargazers.gsfc.nasa.gov/resources/sun_earth_background.htm
And, as I said before NASA’s website is a must read for you and the other interlocutors interested in actual discussion.
Nereid, I strongly advise you review it and familiarize yourself with the principles discussed…unless you think NASA is wrong.
Nereid, why don’t you tell all the readers exactly where NASA is wrong.
And let us not forget the statement from NASA:
“Electric charges, electric fields and electric current are critical to the study of the structure of the Sun, solar wind and the magnetosphere of the Earth. Moreover, electric current causes magnetic fields (see Electromagnetism) that are important to understanding dynamic characteristics of the Sun and how the Sun interacts with the Earth.”
Sometimes I wonder if these guys don’t carry on ad nauseam just to bury the information that they can’t challenge like the NASA website.
Oh dear,
Behaving as predicted again, and again back to the usual claptrap by shoving misquoted nonsense.
Again, as Homme du Sud said previously, ;
GET IT!!
@A: actually, why don’t you contact them – or anyone in any Physics department (or even physics teacher in a high school) – and tell them that you have concluded, based on what you read in their documents, that the emf is a force?
For the record, I have no complaints with either of these two … after all, it’s not their fault, nor mine, if you don’t even try to understand what they wrote …
A “force” is something that causes “something” to move. Plain English.
That’s why it’s call “electromotive force” or as Van Valtkenburgh stated it:
“The unit of potential difference is the volt. A volt is defined as the potential difference necessary to obtain 1 joule of work (EMF) — electron moving force — or potential difference of volt when this happens.”
@A: actually, right now, I’m far more interested in hearing from you concerning Don Scott’s astonishing statement.
I mean, if you agree with it, then you have no reason to be here at all, have you?
And if you don’t agree with it, please say so explicitly (and I’m sure someone will inform the TB crowd that you have pulled the rug from under Scott).
I’ll grant that there would certainly still be some UT stories you could discuss, ones which depend upon in situ observations by space probes for example, or analyses of meteors and meteorites …
So, per Anaconda’s revision of physics, if the “something” doesn’t move, then there are no forces acting on it?
Plain English, right? (plus plain logic)
Nereid, you took the Scott quote out of context and inserted in this thread, why?
Is that a measure of your consternation?
The Scott quote is regarding the solar neutrino puzzle. You know, the “three flavors” of neutrinos. Scott was simply saying that when the assertion is made that neutrinos “change flavor” to be one of the three flavors, it is problematic to know if and where “changing flavor” happens, if your only measurement point is at the end of the pipe where the neutrinos come out.
Nereid, do you think it is appropriate to inject a quote for the purpose generating bias that has nothing to do with the discussion, and when you do, fail to provide any context so the reader would understand what you are referring to?
Anaconda says: “A “force” is something that causes “something” to move. Plain English.”
We’re not dealing with Plain English. We’re dealing with physics, astronomy and science in general, topics which are beyond your comprehension.
I’m laughing right now at the ridiculousness of this entire thread. It’s gone completely over the edge. Wow. I will remember this for the rest of my days. My goodness.
I would love to have all of us in a room in real life with a blackboard and access to the web, and see what happens. Maybe we should meet up in Germany and say hello to DrFlimmer when he has a break from his classes.
Of course, a force can be applied to something that “won’t budge”.
Crumb provided a paper (a constructive development):
From the abstract: “Conclusions. The GBT observations confirm that the magnetic field collimates the H2O maser jet, while the OH maser observations show that a strong large scale magnetic field is present in the envelope surrounding the W43A central star. The magnetic field in the OH maser envelope is consistent with the one extrapolated from the H2O measurements, confirming that magnetic fields play an important role in the entire circumstellar environment of W43A.”
Yes, magnetic fields are important, and, yes, Crumb, I do acknowledge electric fields and electric currents are very hard to observe & measure at remote distance from the objects.
That does not mean they should be ignored when discussing astrophysics, it just means that quantifying them will be difficult.
As Science knows as stated by Dr. Eugene N. Parker and NASA:
Electric currents cause magnetic fields.
Nereid,
H2O
E = mc2
Use the ‘sub’ html element for subscripts and ‘sup’ for superscripts.
OK here’s the full context (link to Scott document in next comment):
“TB states that I start my critique of the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory report by ‘parsing a sentence‘ from that report. He agrees with my conclusion that the sentence makes no logical sense, but weasles that it was for only this experiment9. But this was the experiment that has been ballyhooed as constituting the definitive ‘proof‘ that neutrinos ‘have mass and can change flavor.‘ This one was the ‘big one‘. What TB ignores is that I do start by stating a simple obvious fact, “There is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel.” That is what the SNO researchers did and it is a blatant logical error in their experimental procedure.”
(bold in original)
Read what Scott wrote, very, very, very carefully Anaconda.
There is nothing in Scott’s text which requires it be restricted solely to neutrinos!
This is very, very important.
If you like, what’s good for the neutrino goose, is just as good for the photon gander …
Anaconda said;
“That does not mean they should be ignored when discussing astrophysics, it just means that quantifying them will be difficult.”
Who says they are ignored? That is why I posted this reference!!!!!!!!!! Astrophysics can only deduce theory of phenomena based on actual observation, and mathematical and theory explaining predictions of the behaviour of that phenomena.
This paper say in the conclusion;
“Our result is consistent with the predicted magnetic field extrapolated from the blue-shifted H2O maser region of W43A, and further confirms that the magnetic field plays an important role in the transition from a spherical AGB star to a non-spherical PN.” ” ..[our observations] implies a magnetic field of 100 micro G”
However, the EVIDENCE means compared to the expanding nebulosity, this magnetic field plays a minor role.
Therefore, you statement here is actually false. Astronomy does take magnetic fields into account for the merger knowledge we have, however, it is not the overriding cause of the phenomena!
@ND
Good idea, I would really love to meet you. That would be funny!
@Anaconda
(This was about my statement that I didn’t entcounter something like the emf in the German language)
No, I should not, because it is unnecessary! Everything you need for Plasma physics is contained in Maxwell’s equations plus the Lorentz force. That’s it.
Just for your information: I attend a course “introduction to theoretical plasma physics” in this semester. I guess, I will not encounter any emf, again. It is more likely to consider MHD, flux freezing, Vlasov equation, etc.
Although it has been commented already by others, I cannot remain silent on this one:
The thing is, we don’t debate plain English, but physics here. And in physics words have a specific meaning, and this meaning should not be changed. Otherwise noone would know what the other one is talking about – confusion everywhere (well, we see where it leads right here in this “discussion”!).
A proton is a proton and should not be named an electron, for example.
And the same is true for the physical definition of a force. A force in the physical sense is something that can be written in the mathematical form of
F=m*a.
In this sense, emf is not a force. No discussions about that.
So, deal with it. Physical entities have their specific meaning, and if you want to discuss physics you MUST know them – otherwise a meaningful discussion is not possible.
Emf is not a force, and, actually, it is not necessary to talk about it. As I already said, plasma physics, just like electrodynamics, is well described with Maxwell’s equations and the Lorentz force.
If you wonder, the Coulomb law is basically the first of Maxwell’s equations (div E = rho/epsilon0).
Ah, the divertimento in E, a rhapsody on a theme by Epsilon Oh (she’s from Singapore)! Such balance, such grace …
No, wait … “rho” is not a standard abbreviation for “rhapsody”!
Oh … sorry, I didn’t realise we weren’t discussing music …
(spoiler: this is a joke … it’s entirely OK to say that Nereid’s sense of humour is … horrible …)
Nereid, omg, wtf? 😀
As Ivan3man would put it:
*crickets*