SDO On Station Transmitting First Data as Solar Science Payloads Open Today

47 Replies to “SDO On Station Transmitting First Data as Solar Science Payloads Open Today”

1. The artist’s “concept of the Solar Dynamics Observatory in orbit “is a real worry. Is it going to observe the Sun or is it aiming weapons at the sun to exterminate it?

   (Just hope it isn’t an EU/PC plot to stop nucleosythesis that they predict occurs across the surface of the Sun by electricity.)

2. iantresman,

   Nuclear reactions certainly occur outside the Sun’s core; they occur in the Earth’s atmosphere (that’s how the carbon-14 that carbon dating is based on is produced), for example.

   However, nuclear reactions outside the Sun’s core produce, or consume, utterly trivial amounts of energy compared with those in the core.

   Can you say a few words on how you expect data from the Magnetic Imager could be used to quantify electric currents? Also, what relevance does the existence of electric currents in the solar corona have to any astrophysically interesting nucleosynthesis processes?

3. I’d also like to hear from iantresman what sort of missions and researchs he would like to see done to investigate the hypothesis in EU/PC.

4. Hold on boy…

   You might like to see what others of your brethren the EU/PC variety might say.

   Let’s see. How about the Thunderbolts.Info Site, where on the page “The “Iron Sun” Debate (1) Nuclear Reactions at the Solar Surface”, your own name is listed as “contributing Editor”
   .
   Now let us see; This article says;

   “..finds compelling evidence that nuclear reactions occur at the foot points of solar flares—hot spots associated with prominent magnetic loops and intense electric fields. This observation places the nuclear reactions far from where conventional theorists locate them–at the Sun’s core.”

   Ergo, by direct evidence suggest your statement suggest you believe that “nucleosynthesis occurs in solar flares.”

   Again your hidden agenda (again) is shown for all to see!

   Adios, Amico!

5. Jean Tate Says:
   @ at all…

   Jean said;

   “iantresman,
   Nuclear reactions certainly occur outside the Sun’s core; they occur in the Earth’s atmosphere (that’s how the carbon-14 that carbon dating is based on is produced), for example.
   However, nuclear reactions outside the Sun’s core produce, or consume, utterly trivial amounts of energy compared with those in the core.
   Can you say a few words on how you expect data from the Magnetic Imager could be used to quantify electric currents? Also, what relevance does the existence of electric currents in the solar corona have to any astrophysically interesting nucleosynthesis processes?

   Thanks, but there is one grand hole in iantresman argument. Neutrinos!!!

   If they come from flares, then Sun neutrinos comes from an area of about 0.5 degrees. However, neutrino observatories indicate the source comes from the core of the sun. (See the results from the Gran Sasso National Laboratory near L’Aquila, Italy (to many references to name), for solar neutrinos ) Don’t believe me. Read how the observation and research are obtained, which was determined by the neutrino “refraction index” and the ““effective mixing angle.” )

   Note: I’m very happy to discuss neutrino resolution of neutrino telecopy if you wish!

   So. The only conclusion we can draw is thus. Nucleosynthesis comes from the core not solar f;ares.

   Ergo “electric universe” models are observationally wrong – and proven from actual observation.

   Adios, Amico!

6. iantresman said at @ND

   “This is probably not the place to discuss speculative theories, but I am happy to see what the SDO reveals, and take it from there.”

   Absolute excellent answer and vague response, and one I would not have said it better myself!

   I give you not speculation but actual observational evidence!

   Ergo “electric universe” models are observationally wrong – and proven from actual observation.

   Adios, Amico!

7. Come in and greet me, said the spider to the fly!

   Thanks ND!!!

8. lantresman said;

   “If you wish to discuss speculative theories and neutrinos,”

   “Speculative theories”, eh?

   Is that not is a broad assumption, here. Rhetoric here is clearly not your strong suit, is it!

   Focus very carefully, please, and without the usual philosophical mumbo-jumbo and asinine arguments .

   Very, very, simple question.

   Do actual observed neutrinos come from the centre of the sun or from flares on the solar surface?

9. You have said in this thread; “I am not responsible for the ideas of others,”

   So, firstly, what is YOUR view(s)?

   Secondly; Do you now deny true association with the site Thunderbolts.Info and the views already linked article “The “Iron Sun” Debate? (1) ? Your own name is on it!

   Yea or Nay?

   So is this said “idea” here also your view (now or then)?

10. lantresman said;

    “@Jean, of course nuclear reactions occur outside the Sun’s core, and of course they consume/produce small amounts of energy, no dispute. I never claimed otherwise.”

    Evidence given here in these general comments says this is clearly not true.

    Could you please kindly explain otherwise…

11. @iantresman
    “Universe Today is not the place to discuss our own personal views.”

    Actually it is very interesting to hear what your views are. So far you are running in circles to avoid the questions.

    So it is interesting to hear from you how exactly EVE can show that EU-like theories is right and how EVE would show that EU-like therories are plain wrong. What should ahppen what should be detected and what should not be detected?

12. @iantresman

    You are actually pushing your views indirectly onto other pople here throught your link which is clearly EU.

13. lantresman said;

    “You continually bring it up EU, which I described as “speculative”.”

    “It was the electrical theorists who first suggested that surface events, not a hidden nuclear furnace at the Sun’s center, appear to be the source of neutrino production (the subatomic signature of nuclear fusion).”

    It can’t be both, can it?

    Yet, contrary to this evidence already here, and to quote from your own (or associate) words – which you generally and divisively call “Magnetic Confinement fusion” (you exact words, mind you) .

    So either what you say is either;

    1) Your contradict your own beliefs and statements; or

    2) What you are state here is actually not true?

    (No bullies here, just openly questioning your already own associated words!)

14. Without the usual diversions, please; Very, very, simple question.

    Do actual observed neutrinos come from the centre of the sun or from flares on the solar surface?

    Yes or no?

15. Without the usual diversions, please;

    Do you now deny true association with the site Thunderbolts.Info and the views already linked article “The “Iron Sun” Debate? (1) ?</B

    Your own name is on it!

    Yea or Nay?

16. @ lantresman

    Some reverse question, then

    Does nucleosythesis and solar neutrinos only occur is the solar core?

    Yes or no.

    Does nucleosythesis and solar neutrinos only occur is the solar core and solar flares?

    Yes or no.

    The sun only generates its energy through solar fusion?

    Yes or no.

    I’d like your opinion, please.

    (My own answer is; Yes, No, and Yes,)

17. iantresman Says:
    “@ND
    This is probably not the place to discuss speculative theories,…”

    Does this mean you’ll stop talking about EU/PC?

18. @iantresman

    “Dammed if I do, dammed if I don’t. My link is to my website, which was provided as an option during sign-up. It is not EU, and does not promote “my” theory, though obviously the content may share common ideas with other theories.”

    OK I am confused now.
    You are promoting your site but it is not your theorie?
    You are promoting something you do not believe in?

    And what is the difference between PC and EU?
    Why don’t you like EU? What makes PC better than EU?

19. lantresman said;

    “if I do, dammed if I don’t. My link is to my website, which was provided as an option during sign-up. It is not EU, and does not promote “my” theory, though obviously the content may share common ideas with other theories.”

    Pretty emotive, You sate your opinions, force it down everyone’s throat, then plead the 5th…

    You have been proven to show that you favour “Electric Universe”, “as advertised” across multiple forums, then you avoid association from it by either describing it as some “personal theory” or as “common ideas with other theories.”

    From this we can only conclude what you say is needless rhetoric or deliberate deception.

    Historically an Electric Universe proponent (or its avoiding deviations) usually claims he is NOT an electric universe proponent! (An edict mostly from Thunderbolt.Info.)

    Your words since 2002/03 to now actually condemn you!

    You sate one view now say anther, We ask you for your point of view, and you just skate around the issue and avoid it.

    Bottom line, You said “…nuclear reactions outside the Sun’s core produce, or consume, utterly trivial amounts of energy compared with those in the core.”

    Yet ,from your own words, as proven to be written by you, or even when we including words already directly associated with you, you then flatly deny it! Then yet, you still come to this (and other forum sites), claiming some outrageous contrary views to accepted theory, say it is wrong, but are unable to support your view. Then when shown via logic and reasoning, you flatly deny what you say and pretend your the victim and claim you have been misrepresented!.
    Now you say you are “Dammed if I do, dammed if I don’t.” – when the truth if the matter is your “damned by the evidence.”

    Frankly, whether your views are right or wrong doesn’t actually matter anymore. The behaviour of bluntly avoiding even simple questions, even against what you have already said, immediately create suspicion and seemingly deliberate and quite avoidable deceptions.

    In the Universe Today forum we have seen time and again the same behaviour. Bloggers here do debate, but within the boundaries of current theory, evidence and diverse observed phenomena. Like everyone, we try to make sense of the science and the issues of the story that surround it.

    Half baked ideas and needless needling by those with an organised agendas and hidden motive are just not appreciated. So, most of us might act irresponsibly and aggressively, but most of us at least stick to the boundaries of logical enquiry.

    In the end, whether your PC/EU or not, words needless sugarcoated with hidden motives does not go down well with anyone. You and your ilk, being specialist in its art of deceptions, come across as just plain fraudulent.

    So please stop treating everyone as if they numbingly stupid. Few that are interested to learn about science are.

20. The quote you avoid;
    “It was the electrical theorists who first suggested that surface events, not a hidden nuclear furnace at the Sun’s center, appear to be the source of neutrino production (the subatomic signature of nuclear fusion).”

    This come from The “Iron Sun” Debate (1)
    Nuclear Reactions at the Solar Surface, as do most of my quotes here.

    The attribultion of the article states; EXECUTIVE EDITORS: David Talbott, Wallace Thornhill MANAGING EDITOR: Michael Armstrong CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Dwardu Cardona, Ev Cochrane, C.J. Ransom, Don Scott, Rens van der Sluijs,Ian Tresman WEBMASTER: Michael Armstrong

    If that is not you then say so, otherwise you are associated with the views and statements.

    As to “This is all very unfair to the people who came here to read about SDO.”

    OK. How about those who came to read about SDO to be faced with outrageous statements like;

    “… although others have considered “Nucleosynthesis in stellar flares”.

    To say so is obviously deceptive and clearly false. More one one in a million would be foolish enough to accept it, and it denies every astronomy textbook on planet Earth.

    So why say it if it isn’t true?

    If actually I taught that in an astronomy class in high school or university, I’d be immediately dismissed as a crackpot!

21. iantresman said;

    “I am not here for a McCarthism inquisition, and will not answer any more questions.”

    Great. So the dragon, in this argument, has finally been slain.

    So much for EU/ PC, whatever….

    (Many apologies for disrupting your excellent story here Ken, but sometimes these thing have to be done and said. If distortions like this were to come into the mainstream, SDO scientific work would come more like a game of football than serious investigation of the Sun and our current knowledge. Cheers.)

22. @Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    “one in a million would be foolish enough to accept it,”

    Actually 1 in 100 is more likely. They come to this scientific site they see the EU/PC spam and assume that it must be true since this is a science site.

    And what better location to harvest EU followers than on a science site? And once you get in the trap of conspiracy theorists your life is over. Beeing addicted since it acts like a drug.

    Sadly enough I recently discovered that my brother in law is victim of a reading too many conspiracy sites. He started to prepare for the end of the world and wanted to buy a gun since the government were all liars and cannot be trusted. His life is wasted no hope anymore.

23. iantresman,

    The HMI website doesn’t say that the direction of the magnetic field in the Sun’s corona will be measured (it says “also produces data to enable estimates of the coronal magnetic field”).

    In any case, how would you go about turning estimates of magnetic fields in the solar corona into something about electric currents?

24. HMI will generate vector magnetograms, and sequences, but not for the corona; the magnetic structure of the corona will come from an MHD model (see this 2005 AGU poster; warning: 2MB PDF).

    The Fisher et al. preprint discusses a technique that may be used to estimate the electric field distribution on the Sun’s photosphere, from observed vector magnetogram time series. The technique makes important assumptions about the state of the plasma (e.g. ideal MHD).

    Besides, it’s a very long way from infering E field distributions on the photosphere to quantifying electric currents flowing through the corona.

25. That just happened!

26. Here’s something I found that seems to touch on what ian is talking about:

    http://www.research.gov/rgov/anonymous.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=news_1_1&news_1_1_actionOverride=/gov/research/core/cms/news/begin&news_1_1nodePath=/BEA+Repository/news/items/1258681651140&_pageLabel=page_latest_news

27. I opened this up with some trepidation for fears of EU kerfuffle. I entered here mostly after hearing Beethoven’s Scherzo movement from his 9th Symphony.

    There are secondary nuclear reactions outside the solar core, or really a shell surrounding the core. Protons propelled by solar flairs and the rest are in mostly the KeV range of energy, but some are up into the MeV range. These particles can slam into other nuclei and transform them into other isotopes

    C_{12) + p –> C_{13} + e^+ + neutrino

    and so forth. As Jean Tate indicates this is a source for C^{14). These reactions generally do not release energy, but absorb energy. They are endothermic in a chemical sense. They are also pathetically small. The interior of the sun converts somewhere around 100 thousand tons of mass into energy every second (as I recall), while these types of reaction might convert a few kilograms or tons of nucleides into other isotopes or isobars every second — absorbing sub-grams amount of energy which is converted into mass. An absolutely trivial amount compared to what is happening in the core.

    This is not meant to give EU/PU zombies any credibility.

    LC

28. @ Lawrence.

    Just one point. When atoms are smashed in colliders using particles like electrons, we don’t really call that “nucleosynthesis” via fusion? When a star collapses into a neutron star, the nuclear change. (Next we will be claiming radioactivity is nucleosynthesis!)

    The claim by EU/PC is that the sun doesn’t create its energy the fusion process in the core but ONLY in solar flares or photosphere, and by ONLY by various electric / magnetic field effects. They claim their laboratory experiments prove it! Evidence by the neutrino emissions shows the process takes place in the core – else their would be a emission disk about 0.5 degrees across. It is not the case.

    In the arguments here, the solar flares (as the linked article in the poorly titled “Nucleosynthesis in stellar flares” by Tatischef explains) make trace amounts of produced Li-7 and Be-8 (Lithium Seven and Beryllium Eight). (whose energy to produce it is small.) This process is really radioactive – as the reactions do not make the sun shine – nucleosynthesis in the core via fusion does that.

    Yet has said iantresman (his name’s on it), but NOW he says he denies this, said; I.e. This article “The “Iron Sun” Debate (1) Nuclear Reactions at the Solar Surface”, says;

    “..finds compelling evidence that nuclear reactions occur at the foot points of solar flares—hot spots associated with prominent magnetic loops and intense electric fields. This observation places the nuclear reactions far from where conventional theorists locate them – at the Sun’s core.”

    Ergo. There is no confusion here. iantresman cannot hold both positions here. He actually said;

    “Since magnetic fields and electric currents are recognized as being responsible for the Sun’s activity, I believe that the SDO’s Magnetic Imager will help quantify the electric currents running through the solar corona. But nucleosythesis is thought to take place in the core, as highlighted by Jean Tate in the famous B²FH paper, although others have considered “Nucleosynthesis in stellar flares”.

    Some clever semantics here; He is saying “nucleosythesis” occurs either in the core or solar flares.

    He does not say; the vast of the nucleosythesis occurs in the core via the process of fusion.

    Also importantly fusion and nucleosythesis in the core is not cause by magnetic or electric fields, but by the violent collision where nuclei exceed the Coulomb barrier.

    So the point here must be made absolutely clear. Shielding the truth just to lend support to some belief is clearly wrong and deceptive. Why does he say this? If iantresman doesn’t, he will be ostracised and discarded as a EU/PC proponent.

    [Those interested in fusion and how the sun shines (without the bull), there is an exceptional article written by the Nobel prize winner John N. Bahcall entitled “How the Sun Shines.”]

29. Correction to above post.

    He does not say; the vast majority of the nucleosythesis occurs in the core via the process of fusion.

30. Sorry. I forgot to mention the most important bit.

    The process of this presumed “nucleosynthesis” is actually called “(nuclear) spallation” or “cosmic ray spallation.” It also occurs by the collision of high-energy particles in the Earth’s atmosphere (C14), with particle accelerators and subcritical fussion reactors.

    It is importantly NOTt associated with energy fusion in the Sun.

    The word “Nucleosynthesis” in the paper given by iantresman is probably a problem in translation by the French and Spanish authors. Spallation is actually the correct term.

31. Having trouble today. I meant “fission” NOT “fussion.”

    (Though from the crazy story here, “fussion” really better describe what EU/PC’ers believe!)

32. iantresman,

    Thanks for the source.

    I know you are very interested in plasma physics, especially in its application to space physics and astrophysics. If I may be so bold, I’d recommend that you get a BSc degree, with a major in physics, and then at least an MSc, in plasma physics, space physics, or astrophysics (from reading your comments I concluded that you don’t have any such degrees already; if I am mistaken, I apologize).

    You see, I know from first hand experience just how difficult it is to write short articles on front-line research in these fields, articles which are readable, comprehensible, and also reasonably faithful to the underlying science.

    The SPACE.COM story is a good example.

    Data from HMI, combined perhaps with other data, will help scientists like Guhathakurta get a handle on electric currents in the solar corona. However, as the 2005 AGU poster makes clear, that will come from the developments of models, based on MHD; and as the Fisher et al. preprint makes clear, such models do not produce unique solutions for things like electric fields and currents.

33. @Jean Tate

    The problem with EU/PC people is that they believe that their theories is the only right one and that there is some conspiracy of scientists that want to shut them up.

    Plasma and currents doe have an important place ins astrophysics. But in no way as important as the EU/PC people would like it to have.

    EU/PC people are like creationists. They invent some new pseudo-science and try to infiltrate it in the science forums letting people doubt. It is a way to attract followers in your sect. Give some impressive pseudo-talk that sound logical but have zero scientific value when tested.

    EU/PC would become more credible if they would come up with some models and predict some outcome what should be seen, what should not be seen when doing their experiments. But they never do. They just wait until they get an article that matches their views and ignore all other article that disproves their view.

34. iantresman,

    You’re still missing important background in plasma, physics and astrophysics. So many EU/PC proponents have had suggested to them that they should truly go and study the topic at a university. This is because they, and you, are proposing, very forcefully, that the current cosmological and astrophysical concepts are completely wrong and these fields of study should be based completely on plasma physics centered concepts. But you and others don’t have the credential nor the credibility to be taken seriously over the cosmologists and astrophysicists doing the actual research out in the field.

35. @ iantresman,

    You said; “I have a B.Sc. in Chemistry,”

    so then how did you miss that the “process of this presumed “nucleosynthesis” is actually called “(nuclear) spallation” or “cosmic ray spallation.”?

    Surely you would have done something on spallation in C13/C14 production and in the basics of atomic-level structures in both nuclear or physical chemistry.You know, firing neutrons at crystals and materials. i did. How did you miss that little tidbit?

    Note: As for saying “My 12-year-old niece wonders whether some of the people commenting here, have even been to school.” Is that not is an “Appeal to ridicule” fallacy, which is weak and unscientific? (Isn’t that calling the kettle black?)

36. iantresman said;

    @ND: I have never claimed that “current cosmological and astrophysical concepts are completely wrong”.

    Semantics again; So clearly you also don’t support them either? Right?

    Q: I’ve read this Smulsky 1991 “A New Approach to Electrodynamics and to the Theory of Gravity.” It is the core bible paper on PC/EU. Do you agree with this paper in principal then?

    (Note: Some people may have problems linking to this Russian paper in some countries. I’d be interested if US readers have trouble accessing it.)

37. My niece tells me that actually it’s “the pot calling the kettle black”. Yes I know. I was just emphasising my point.

    Good to see you do agree with me. Regardless, It does “Appeal to ridicule” fallacy, which is weak and unscientific?” Right?

    As to your definition of nucleosynthesis – really lovely splitting of hairs. So according to you, then radioactivity must be that too? (funny the ol’ Prof. never mentioned that to me!)

    Clearly from now on you will be more precise then, properly differentiating between the two. As some profess the PU/EU claim that nucleosynthesis does not occur in the core at all, then I do suggest you make sure everyone else knows what your actually talking about! (Wouldn’t want us to be confused, would we? Also I would not want to be wrongly associated with those crazy EU/PC people and their mixed up ideas? Cold be embarrassing. methinks.)

    You then say “Spallation is indeed a type of nucleosynthesis.” Interesting. (Can I quote you?)

    Well in astrophysics it is certainly not the case – but of course it is very easy to miss that tid-bit when the aim is trying to be imprecise so you can’t be nailed down.

    As for your second paragraph, well, wouldn’t want to sit on the fence would we! What you are actually saying in 38 words is absolutely no position at all – and that takes some doing. (Damned if I could do that.).

    Logically, I can only assume here you don’t know, or worried it might just incriminate you.

    But now you say it is irrelevant to SDO, well is it? I just wonder if can we detect 7Li being produced in the sun’s flares? Umm….

    FInally I really love your EU/PC favourite quote; “…99% of the visible universe is in the plasma state”

    Always was impressed with that until I realised the other things are more astounding.

    1. “Nearly 100% of space in the universe is empty.”

    2. “100% of baryons are influenced by gravity in the universe.”

    But the best one I like is;

    3. “99% of the visible universe is in the plasma state, but nearly all of it is inside stars, and it occupies a volume that is merely a tiny fraction of the universe. (Refer Question 1)

    Keep up the petty formal and lexical semantics please. All it shows to other people you have something to hide. God help us if you might have a legitimate opinion! Clearly your literary gamesmanship is first class! Ta!

38. iantresman,

    Thanks for that.

    I’m a little puzzled. What was the connection you had in mind when you mentioned both electric currents in the corona and nucleosynthesis (in flares)?

    Hon. Salacious B. Crumb,

    A big majority (60-80%?) of the universe’s baryons are found in the intra-cluster medium of rich clusters and in the WHIM (warm-hot intergalactic medium). Zwicky was the first to discover that this might be so, back in 1934 (or thereabouts), but the first x-ray observations of galaxy clusters (1970s?) provided the first direct confirmation of the fact that most of the baryons in such clusters are in the hot plasma which pervades them (and not, as one would perhaps expect, in the galaxies themselves).

39. Jean and especially iantresman.

    I’m very surprised at the empty space response, and especially from ian who say he has a B.Sc. in chemistry.

    Think of the size of atoms and the huge spaces between nucleus and its electrons. Look at the average distance between the stars and the volume that it entails. Look at the sheer volume of space between the galaxies and the average density of atoms.

    In all it is staggering how ‘lonely’ the universe is.

    I think we consider the universe to be like the bulk of our own bodies or the atmosphere. The sheer number of atoms is staggering, but the amount of actual empty space is even more staggering!

    This is what makes astronomy so mindbogglingly so astounding.

    I totally dumfounded you could think otherwise!

    Q: What is the average density of electrons in the magnetic field across space? But of course the real killer is do you believe the number of protons equal the number of electrons in the universe?

40. Jean Tate wrote: “What was the connection you had in mind when you mentioned both electric currents in the corona and nucleosynthesis (in flares)?”

    He doesn’t want to say it, but I know the connect. Ian has been avoid it like crazy.

    He actually believes that ALL nucleosynthesis (fusion and spallation) occurs in flares and the magnetic / electric fields either on the photosphere, below the surface of the photosphere, and in flares. (just ask and see the responses of his EU/PC mates sorley (avatared sometimes as Tim Erney) and Anaconda.) The corona is the manifestation of this field, as evidence by its extreme ionisation and temperature.

    He won’t say all of this because it is all part of the mind games directed by Thunderbolts.Info and their edict I.e. “… you not identify yourself as a member of the Thunderbolts group, but as a curious or interested observer.” (As some of my argument point out here. Ian, is a contributing editor at Thunderbolts.Info)

    Note: ian doesn’t comment that most plasma is within stars. Why? He is just avoiding nucleosynthesis by fusion issue (yet again.)

    One final comment. Ian will say this has nothing to do with SDO. We all know it does, because if we were to take the EU/PC point of view, then we are interpreting what SDO is actually observing. (Remember the spallation of 7Li. Can SDO find evidence of this in flares?)

41. Sorry. The last paragraph should read;

    One final comment. Ian will say this has nothing to do with SDO. We all know it does, because if we were to take the EU/PC point of view, then we are WRONGLY interpreting what SDO is actually observing. (Also remember the spallation in flares of 7Li. Can SDO find evidence of this in flares?)

42. As for Jean statement that “A big majority (60-80%?) of the universe’s baryons are found in the intra-cluster medium of rich clusters and in the WHIM (warm-hot intergalactic medium).”

    I was really hoping that Ian would have said that… (Same spider, wrong fly! :))

    Values quoted are usually stated as 40%-50%, and the value is only assumed via computer simulations. There is much debate on the nature of this plasma – properly called collision less plasma. Much of it is thought to be remnants of the Big Big, and these baryons are studies under baryongenesis.

    Most of this collisionless kind is just sitting in space, and is not connected to any organised electric or magnetic field. It varies enormously in anisotropic temperature, electron temperature and ion differences. This stuff makes up the vast majority of your WHIM (c.95%). What is interesting is that gravity or shocks acts on these collision less plasma, which like in galaxy clusters, is literally drawn into activity. Activity is based over long time periods and various epochs like just after the big bang or when the galaxy cluster were forming, etc. I.e. It is epoch dependant. (As the universe expands the less likely will the WHIM will be important.)

    Of course, much of this is speculation, as the only evidence is by soft X-rays along filaments and in active galaxy nuclei and only active galaxy clusters. There is no true observational evidence of the quantity of collisionless plasma nor can it be formally observed – only because it doesn’t show itself. (it is about equally ubiquitous as dark matter or dark energy – and we are yet to find that too!)

    Then there is the observed “active plasma” which 99% lies inside stars. This is based mostly on the high density in stellar cores compared to the galactic and intergalactic medium.

    Actually, the EU/PC view should read;

    “”…99% of the visible universe is LIKELY in the plasma state””

    Also, my statement should read;

    “99% of the visible universe is LIKELY in the plasma state, but nearly all of THE OBSERVABLE PLASMA is inside stars, and it occupies a volume that is merely a tiny fraction of the universe.

    Actually another statement that astounds me is;

    “As the nucleon mass is nearly 2000 times the mass of an electron, then all atoms and molecules contain at least as many nucleons as electrons, baryons account for more than 99.5% of the total mass of all the chemical elements observed in the Universe.”

43. “The intergalactic medium is full(sic) ionized.(ref)”

    I wasn’t sure if the source (Zweibel) was referring to the IGM in galaxy clusters or space in general. Rereading of the ref, he mentions this twice, and clearly is talking about the entire IGM. I guess he is not familiar with work over many decades on the distribution of NEUTRAL hydrogen observed both locally around and between galaxies and at the most distant regions of the universe. Might want to read up on the “Lyman-alpha forest” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-alpha_forest ).

    “In astronomical spectroscopy, the Lyman alpha forest is the sum of absorption lines arising from the Lyman alpha transition of the neutral hydrogen in the spectra of distant galaxies and quasars.”
    “The Lyman alpha forest is an important probe of the intergalactic medium and can be used to determine the frequency and density of clouds containing neutral hydrogen, as well as their temperature.”
    “For quasars at higher redshift the number of lines in the forest is higher, until at a redshift of about 6, there is so much neutral hydrogen in the intergalactic medium that the forest turns into a Gunn-Peterson trough. This shows the end of the reionization of the universe.”

    Relatively large amounts of neutral hydrogen can also be found in the local universe, usually (but not always) in proximity to known galaxies. So how is the IGM “fully ionized”?

44. iantresman, and others,

    As the study of the IGM progresses, it becomes clear that it is not uniform.

    However, the existence of large clouds of unionized (neutral) clouds of hydrogen in the local IGM has been known for decades (google HVC = high velocity clouds, for example), and many of these sorts of things are to be expected (for example, minor and major mergers, and close encounters, esp of gas-rich spirals, should produce tidal streams which include many largely neutral gas clouds, and that’s exactly what’s observed – google Magellanic Stream, for example).

    In any case, it seems to me there’s no science involved here, just a kind of trivia quiz.

45. Highly ionized HVCs are highly ionized. They tend to have low HI column densities.

    HVCs with high column densities may have relatively high degrees of ionization, or not; this is an interesting area of research.

    The extent to which a region of space, part of the ISM or IGM for example, is ionized is really only meaningful in terms of sorts of science questions you’re trying to answer. One of the interesting puzzles is why the dust which seems to be within some of the IGM (and ISM) clouds is so cold, despite the fact that many ionized metal lines are detected (in absorption). The characteristic time scales for mixing can be very long (billions of years), far longer than the mean time between major galaxy interactions (in groups). Very little is known about the WHIM (except that it’s exceedingly tenuous, of very low metallicity, and contains no HI to speak of).

46. Jean Tate & iantresman,

    Thank you for your replies and expansion of several of your comments in response to my question concerning ionization of the IGM. Agreed study of HVCs is an interesting subfield all by itself.

47. @ iantresman said;

    “Yes, it looks like more recent work may supersede the “fully ionized” source (Soward, 2005) , though he does note that “After about 2E8 years, sources of Lyman continuum radiation appeared which reionized the universe, and have maintained the intergalactic medium as a fully ionized plasma, up to the present day”.

    That is why plasma in the universe is also epoch dependant! (Why does EU/PC never mention that tidbit too?)

    So factually your favourite little statement needs to be modified to;

    “…99% of the visible universe is LIKELY in the current epoch to be in the plasma state”

    As for “There is no dispute that most of the mass of cosmic plasma is in stars. And each second, our Sun ejects about million tons of plasma per second (ref), that’s over a trillion tons of plasma per year, over a proportion of the Sun’s multi-billion year life time. And our Sun is just one of 100s of billions of stars in our galaxy doing exactly the same, and our galaxy is just one of 100s of billions, all pouring plasma out into space.”

    There is a little problem here. What is happening to that plasma? Are you assuming that this makes the grand galactic magnetic field and is immediately then organised into some sort of ground shaking observable phenomena?

    It is the end behaviour of the plasma that you have a problem with (and is likely the core of most PC/EU invalid assumptions) – as most of it becomes just uninteresting and boring collisionless plasma that interacts with nothing but itself!

    It all comes back to just one thing – that plasma and electric / magnetic fields are partially influential, by it is all gravitational interaction cause most of the astronomical/ astrophysical phenomena. It is that organisation of all matter that determines any possible future plasma interaction – and not the other way round.

    (…sorry, PC/EU, clearly has more than the 4000 holes allegedly in Blackburn, Lancashire.)

    Comment: My biggest concern regarding ionisation of the IGM is the idea of “cold plasma” (much of it is really only partially ionised.) Sure it is by broad definition plasma, but it importance in astrophysical / astronomical matter is rather piffling. Hell, you could say a glass of water is said to be ionised, but is it “plasma”, “cold plasma” or just “ordinary matter”?
    Really, it is as I eluded to before, it is mostly tedious semantics and playing with lexical definitions. PC/EU will always fail, not because it is right or wrong, it is its proponents do not define clearly what they mean – and worst it is deliberately done just to aim for the high ground. I.e. spallation being stated as fusion-based nucleosynthesis, when it is clearly not.
    To PC/EU proponents it is a game, to the rest of us it is frankly irrelevant.

Comments are closed.