Ancient Galactic Magnetic Fields Stronger than Expected

by Nancy Atkinson on July 23, 2008

Spiral galaxy M 51 with magnetic field data.  Credit:  MPIfR Bonn

Spiral galaxy M 51 with magnetic field data. Credit: MPIfR Bonn

The origin of magnetic fields in our universe is a mystery. But magnetic fields are a key part of the interstellar medium and scientists are finding they may play a major role in galactic formation, such as helping to form the spiral arms of galaxies. Until recently, however scientists believed the strength of galactic magnetic fields increased over time as galaxies matured, and in the early universe, these magnetic fields were initially very weak. But, recently a team of scientists looking back to probe the ancient universe as it existed 8 to 9 billion years ago has found that the magnetic fields of ancient galaxies were just as strong as they are today, prompting a rethinking of how our galaxy and others may have formed.

Using the European Southern Observatory’s 8-meter telescope located in Chile, a team of scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology studied 70 galaxies similar to the Milky Way at optical wavelengths. They combined their data with 25 years of radio wave observations of magnetic fields that measured how far the radio waves were pulled toward the red end of the spectrum, known as “redshift” using Faraday rotation measures.

Serving as a looking glass into the past, the powerful telescope at the European Southern Observatory, adding to the radio rotation measures, allowed the scientists to observe surprisingly high magnetic fields between 8 billion and 9 billion years ago in the 70 galaxies studied. That means that several billion years before the existence of our own sun, and within only a few billion years of the Big Bang, ancient galaxies were exerting the tug of these strong magnetic fields.

“It was thought that, looking back in the past, earlier galaxies would not have generated much magnetic field,” said Philipp Kronberg of LANL. “The results of this study show that the magnetic fields within Milky Way-like galaxies have been every bit as strong over the last two-thirds of the Universe’s age as they are now-and possibly even stronger then.”

Astronomers had thought a mechanism called a dynamo, which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy was responsible for galactic magnetic fields. In that case, with the right configuration gas flow could generate a higher magnetic field from a weaker seed field. (Again, we have yet to understand how galactic magnetic fields originally form.) But this new research suggests that the magnetic fields in galaxies did not arise due to a slow, large-scale dynamo effect, which would have taken 5 billion to 10 billion years to reach their current measured levels.

“There must be some other explanation for a much quicker and earlier amplification of galactic magnetic fields,” Kronberg said. “From the time when the first stars and galaxies formed, their magnetic fields have probably have been amplified by very fast dynamos. One good possibility is that it happened in the explosive outflows that were driven by supernovae, and possibly even black holes in the very earliest generations of galaxies.”

This realization brings a new focus on the broader question of how galaxies form. Instead of the commonly held view that magnetic fields have little relevance to the genesis of new galaxies, it now appears that they are indeed important players. If so, strong magnetic fields a long time ago are one of the essential ingredients that explain the very existence of our galaxy and others like it.

Original News Source: Los Alamos National Lab

  • Michael Gmirkin

    Aodhhan:

    You said:
    “I look forward to hearing another one of your ignorant posts again soon… under another name I’m sure.”

    What are you on about, exactly? I have never posted under any name other than my full name: Michael Gmirkin or my screenname: MGmirkin. I take umbrage at your insinuation, and ask that you retract your accusation. It’s quite improper.

    You also said:
    “I wont go into how an electromagnet works, there are plenty of places you can go for this.”

    I’ve been to them. They all say the same thing:

    (Electromagnet)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnet

    “An electromagnet is a type of magnet in which the magnetic field is produced by the flow of an electric current. The magnetic field disappears when the current ceases.”

    http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blelectromagnet.htm
    http://www.answers.com/electromagnet

    “A soft-iron core that is magnetized by passing a current through a coil of wire wound on the core.”

    “A magnet created by passing an electric current through coils of wire. Such magnets are widely used in common electrical systems.”

    “[D]evice in which magnetism is produced by an electric current. Any electric current produces a magnetic field…”

    Please check your facts before stating someone does or does not know what they’ve already read about.

    You also stated:
    “magnetic rocks were found far before electricity was thought of.”

    What has one to do with the other? The chronological history of when magnetic materials was discovered has NOTHING whatsoever to do with explaining the WHY of the thing (in terms of what creates the magnetic field).

    According to Maxwell, electricity and magnetism are flip sides of a coin. Twirl a magnet in a conductive coil of wire, get an electric current. Put a current through a coil of wire, and you get a magnetic field. They are intimately linked. Further than that, they can interplay and interfere constructively or destructively leading to various specific known behaviors and instabilities.

    However, according to definition, the magnetic field comes from a net flow of like charges. Positive charges flowing one way, while negative charges are stationary or in chaotic motion; negative charges flowing the same direction while positive charges are stationary or in chaotic motion; or lastly, positive charges flowing one way and negative charges flowing the opposite direction in the same circuit.

    Actually there are a few other ways that things can go on including p-holes (in which an absence of a charge takes the place of an opposite charge, more or less), etc. But it’s generally the same song and dance, no matter how you slice it.

    (Which Way Does the “Electricity” Really Flow? Bill Beatty, 1996.)
    http://amasci.com/amateur/elecdir.html

    These are the thing you learn when you actually READ about them. Somewhat extensively.

    You then go on to say later more or less what I’ve already stated:

    “since the genesis of the universe is only theory; perhaps a good start would be to research magenetic fields in or around stellar nurseries; both inside and outside galaxies with large/small magnetic energy.”

    Precisely right, the current Big Bang model is only a theory, which has a number of drawbacks / patchwork kludges where observations invalidated predictions. It would be good to study magnetic fields around star-forming regions, young galaxies, plasma filaments between stars / galaxies, or those in which nascent galaxies are apparently embedded. What role do the magnetic fields and their source currents play in the genesis of those structures.

    “You’re right Bill, magnetism comes from currents in all phases. An organized current of electrons so to speak. Which came first is a good question as well…”

    Precisely the point I was getting at. So, I think we agree there, finally… Glad to see you come toward light.

    Regards,
    ~Michael Gmirkin

  • Michael Gmirkin

    Kootstar said:

    “Also, where does lightening come from and go to and why? Put all of this together and a whole field of possibilities arise. An uneducated field of guess compared to scientists, but an opening to my imagination!”

    Well, Earth is a charged body with respect to the upper atmosphere and with respect to space and other bodies in it.

    (Earth’s Electrical Structure)
    http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index/lightning-faq/2

    “What is the Earth’s charge?
    The Earth is electrically charged and acts as a spherical capacitor. The Earth has a net negative charge of about a million coulombs, while an equal and positive charge resides in the atmosphere.”

    Clouds in thunderstorms will tend to have a lot of charged particles. If I recall correctly, they may also be somewhat segregated with positives near the top and negatives near the bottom. Being that the negatives are closer to ground, the spark gap is shorter and we tend to see more negative lightning strikes than positive (since positive strikes generally emanate from the tops of clouds and have to travel a further distance). Since the fields required to stimulate a positive strike are so much greater and there’s probably a lot more actual charges floating about in that case, the positive strikes also tend to be a lot more powerful if/when they do go off.

    I might also point out the difference between electrostatics (charges more-or-less at rest; as in the cloud or in the ground) and electrodynamics (charges in motion; as in the lightning strike itself).

    Electric fields generally tend to fall under the heading of electrostatics. IE, two oppositely charged clouds of particles some distance apart will have an electric field between them.

    Electric currents and the resultant magnetic fields, by association, tend to fall under the field of electrodynamics. IE, the charges in motion in a current / circuit generate the magnetic field. Stationary charges, or charges in random / chaotic motion do not.

    (Electrostatics)
    http://www.answers.com/electrostatics

    (Electrodynamics)
    http://www.answers.com/electrodynamics

    So, yeah, the more-or-less stationary charge in the cloud creating an electric field with respect to the more-or-less stationary charge in the ground would fall under electrostatics.

    When the electric field strength / stress becomes too great, a dielectric breakdown begins to ionize the normally insulating atmosphere in quantized steps (stepped leaders and positive streamers). Once a complete circuit of ionized atmosphere is made, the charges will very quickly start flowing in the circuit to neutralize the charges and bring them into equilibrium, at which time the electric field strength diminishes to a point where the lighting quenches and neutral atmosphere rushes back in to act as an insulator again. The lightning’s current flow falls under electrodynamics.

    Not to hard to identify the processes once you’ve read up on them and seen a few examples.

    Regards,
    ~Michael Gmirkin

  • Jon Hanford

    Maybe Fritz Zwicky and Hannes Alfven WERE on to something. BTW, thanks to Astrofiend for the informative and accurate link. It delved into many relevant aspects of this subject. And thanks to Nancy for a great, informative article.

  • Aodhhan

    Michael,

    Your original point was to demean scientists in their inablity to figure out the problem to a question. You pointed out one little pointed area, misparaphrased it and called yourself a genius.

    What is funny, is now you are searching the Internet, pulling down links to articles and proving just how difficult it truly is to emphatically state the real answer. There are many reasons for magnetism. Just because there is an electrical current abundantly near a magnetic field does not necessarily mean it is the source.

    Also what is funny, is you trying to explain to us how something works when we are hip deep in it every day. We don’t have to pull down the research of others. We have our own.

    Lastly, it is a desperate man who starts pulling in irrelevant information in some lame attempt to mask or saturate the real problem.
    Who cares about the earth’s electrical charges or magnetic field when it comes to this article? It isn’t relevant, nor a basis. If you somehow think it is, then you need to tie it into the equation, not just spout out the words of another.

    It is good you are researching things. However, every research paper has a theory. Doesn’t make it correct, mainstream or validated. Before you site one, ensure you fully understand all aspects of it, and it is relevant to the problem at hand.

    Bottom line… those who conducted this research know far more than you do about magentism, electricity, atomic polarity etc. Ask your questions, state your theories, but don’t for a minute dismiss or demean those individuals who provide the very words you have to pull down from the Internet in some crazy way for you to feel intelligent.

    Know some people who come here actually do know what they are talking about.

  • Chris

    Hurrah for Aodhhan! I agree 100%

  • Kootstar

    Sorry, my wording was not meant to point to any mis-, or not understanding of electricity in myself, neither to start wars of words simply for the sake of that! I was simply trying to start motion in thought about all the static electric “lightening” found already all over our little solar system and the possibles of more in areas of galaxies and, indeed, possibly throughout the universe,some yet undicovered.

  • http://www.irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com quantum_flux

    Hmmm, that is perplexing then…. strong magnetic fields at formation and decreasing field strengths over the life of the galaxy. Perhaps this is related to the gravitational capture of ionized gasses in the interstellar medium. Or worse, perhaps it’s related to dark matter.

  • Ghendi

    Michael Gmirkin thx for all the info!
    Aodhhan, Michael has posted lots of material that you could have at least read before criticizing him.

    You have no idea what he’s talking about., but, as I’ve seen many many times, world is full of lazy people just criticizing the work of others that have real interest in the events and offer full support on the question asked. You just trust some scientists because you cannot study or understand the things yourself.

    Just think about the fact that they are admitting that they have no idea what’s actually happening, they are just speculating.
    This is what the article is all about, describing an event that they cannot explain on the current universe model.
    Michael offers good clues about what actually could be all about and it might actually be true; he didn’t came with these theories by himself, there are also scientists behind them, go figure that.

Previous post:

Next post: