Magnetic Fields in Spiral Galaxies – Explained at Last?

by Jean Tate on April 3, 2010

M51 (Hubble) overlaid by 6cm radio intensity contours and polarization vectors (Effelsberg and VLA) Credit: MPIfR Bonn


That spiral galaxies have magnetic fields has been known for well over half a century (and predictions that they should exist preceded discovery by several years), and some galaxies’ magnetic fields have been mapped in great detail.

But how did these magnetic fields come to have the characteristics we observe them to have? And how do they persist?

A recent paper by UK astronomers Stas Shabala, James Mead, and Paul Alexander may contain answers to these questions, with four physical processes playing a key role: infall of cool gas onto the disk, supernova feedback (these two increase the magnetohydrodynamical turbulence), star formation (this removes gas and hence turbulent energy from the cold gas), and differential galactic rotation (this continuously transfers field energy from the incoherent random field into an ordered field). However, at least one other key process is needed, because the astronomers’ models are inconsistent with the observed fields of massive spiral galaxies.

“Radio synchrotron emission of high energy electrons in the interstellar medium (ISM) indicates the presence of magnetic fields in galaxies. Rotation measures (RM) of background polarized sources indicate two varieties of field: a random field, which is not coherent on scales larger than the turbulence of the ISM; and a spiral ordered field which exhibits large-scale coherence,” the authors write. “For a typical galaxy these fields have strengths of a few μG. In a galaxy such as M51, the coherent magnetic field is observed to be associated with the optical spiral arms. Such fields are important in star formation and the physics of cosmic rays, and could also have an effect on galaxy evolution, yet, despite their importance, questions about their origin, evolution and structure remain largely unsolved.”

This field in astrophysics is making rapid progress, with understanding of how the random field is generated having become reasonably well-established only in the last decade or so (it’s generated by turbulence in the ISM, modeled as a single-phase magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) fluid, within which magnetic field lines are frozen). On the other hand, the production of the large-scale field by the winding of the random fields into a spiral, by differential rotation (a dynamo), has been known for much longer.

The details of how the ordered field in spirals formed as those galaxies themselves formed – within a few hundred million years of the decoupling of baryonic matter and radiation (that gave rise to the cosmic microwave background we see today) – are becoming clear, though testing these hypotheses is not yet possible, observationally (very few high-redshift galaxies have been studied in the optical and NIR, period, let alone have had their magnetic fields mapped in detail).

“We present the first (to our knowledge) attempt to include magnetic fields in a self-consistent galaxy formation and evolution model. A number of galaxy properties are predicted, and we compare these with available data,” Shabala, Mead, and Alexander say. They begin with an analytical galaxy formation and evolution model, which “traces gas cooling, star formation, and various feedback processes in a cosmological context. The model simultaneously reproduces the local galaxy properties, star formation history of the Universe, the evolution of the stellar mass function to z ~1.5, and the early build-up of massive galaxies.” Central to the model is the ISM’s turbulent kinetic energy and the random magnetic field energy: the two become equal on timescales that are instantaneous on cosmological timescales.

The drivers are thus the physical processes which inject energy into the ISM, and which remove energy from it.

“One of the most important sources of energy injection into the ISM are supernovae,” the authors write. “Star formation removes turbulent energy,” as you’d expect, and gas “accreting from the dark matter halo deposits its potential energy in turbulence.” In their model there are only four free parameters – three describe the efficiency of the processes which add or remove turbulence from the ISM, and one how fast ordered magnetic fields arise from random ones.

Are Shabala, Mead, and Alexander excited about their results? You be the judge: “Two local samples are used to test the models. The model reproduces magnetic field strengths and radio luminosities well across a wide range of low and intermediate-mass galaxies.”

And what do they think is needed to account for the detailed astronomical observations of high-mass spiral galaxies? “Inclusion of gas ejection by powerful AGNs is necessary in order to quench gas cooling.”

SKA central region with separate core stations for the two aperture arrays for low and mid frequencies and for the dish array. Graphics: Xilostudios and SKA Project Development Office


It goes without saying that the next generation of radio telescopes – EVLA, SKA, and LOFAR – will subject all models of magnetic fields in galaxies (not just spirals) to much more stringent tests (and even enable hypotheses on the formation of those fields, over 10 billion years ago, to be tested).

Source: Magnetic fields in galaxies: I. Radio disks in local late-type galaxies

  • Jean Tate

    Hon. Salacious B. Crumb, IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE,

    Cutting words and sentences is absolutely wrong. If you don’t like what is being said then you should delete the whole text to allow bloggers the opportunity rephrase what they say.

    Good point.

    No more editing of comments (except for things like fixing erroneous URLs) … it’ll be leaving them in, in their entirety, or deletion (which is what Fraser actually says, in the comments policy). However, until he changes it, “Be nice” is top of the list, in that comment policy.

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    @ Jean Tate,

    Acknowledged.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Oh well. There goes 98% of my posts!

  • mgmirkin

    “[references deleted]“?

    What kind of a science site deletes references to peer-reviewed research from LANL? Strange… Well, whatever.

    As to the question from the article:

    “But how did these magnetic fields come to have the characteristics we observe them to have? And how do they persist?”

    The persistence question seems to have a simple answer.

    “Electric fields are created by differences in voltage: the higher the voltage, the stronger will be the resultant field. Magnetic fields are created when electric current flows: the greater the current, the stronger the magnetic field. An electric field will exist even when there is no current flowing. If current does flow, the strength of the magnetic field will vary with power consumption but the electric field strength will be constant.
    (Extract from “Electromagnetic Fields” published by the WHO Regional Office for Europe in 1999 (Local authorities, health and environment briefing pamphlet series; 32).”

    Do feel free to Google the first sentence of the above direct quote from the WHO site, since apparently reference URLs are not allowed.

    Regarding persistence: A simple answer would seem to be that the magnetic fields persist because the electric currents driving them persist. The question is more simply: “from whence the electric currents?” That is to say, what started them, and what keeps them running?

    Likewise what is the nature, strength and configuration of the circuits involved? Is there a driving voltage (one would think so)? Of what magnitude? Etc. Plenty of interesting questions worth pursuing.

  • Jean Tate

    mgmirkin,

    I erred; your comment should be deleted in its entirety (see my earlier comments, above).

    Regarding persistence: A simple answer would seem to be that the magnetic fields persist because the electric currents driving them persist. The question is more simply: “from whence the electric currents?” That is to say, what started them, and what keeps them running?

    As most of the interstellar medium, in spiral galaxies, is a non-relativistic plasma, it can be modeled as a fluid, and analyzed using MHD. As you know, in MHD the Ej and Bv approaches are identical (they have to be, given the assumptions in MHD and Maxwell’s equations).

    So your ‘simple answer’ is a non-answer (I recommend the BAUT Forum’s Q&A section as a good resource if you are interested to understand this fascinating topic further).

    Likewise what is the nature, strength and configuration of the circuits involved? Is there a driving voltage (one would think so)? Of what magnitude? Etc. Plenty of interesting questions worth pursuing.

    May I recommend that you read the paper my article is based on? And in particular, read the papers in which the two main models Shabala et al. rely on are published.

    In short, all the questions you have asked are either non-questions (based on a misunderstanding of basic plasma physics) or have already been answered, in very great detail.

  • Jean Tate

    mgmirkin,

    I did some searching (google is my friend) and found quite a few comments by you, on other, older Universe Today articles.

    From those, and the sometimes quite lengthy responses by others here, I’m a bit surprised at the content of your last comment. While I applaud your curiosity and most certainly would encourage you to go deeper in your studies on plasma physics, I’m having difficulty understanding why you seem to be working from the same, erroneous, perspective that you have presented for several years now.

    Do you mind if I ask you what seems to be the problem?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Jean why all the pandering to these guys… I mean the complete audacity of mgmirkin saying;

    “What kind of a science site deletes references to peer-reviewed research from LANL?”

    Surely this is provocation! (it has been said even in the comments within this very story.) Clearly these published articles are NOT “astronomical / astrophysical peer-reviewed, and this is especially relevant as this is a astronomical / astrophysical science site.

    As for saying;

    “Regarding persistence: A simple answer would seem to be that the magnetic fields persist because the electric currents driving them persist. The question is more simply: “from whence the electric currents?” That is to say, what started them, and what keeps them running?”

    Same old spin. Time and again we show these fields are NOT scaleable. Time and again we point out the problem of the energy source that drives the field.

    Jean then says “I’m a bit surprised at the content f your last comment…”

    I’m not. It is part of the persistence of the organised agenda.They’ve learn regardless where the debate goes, always bring it back to core tenets. Follow the central edict of ‘spreading the word’ where; “Productive long term relationships will require patience, but we need collaborators who are eager to learn, to communicate with others, and to share in world-altering discovery.”

    My own question lately is; “Are these guys being paid for their comment by some eccentric electrician with plenty of cash?”

    Sorry. We’ve seen this same old story all before.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Question 2.

    Why do these guys always want the last word – slotting it in when everyone has moved on?

    I mean. 10 days since this story was first posted!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    @ mgmirkin

    In response to your question, if you want an astrophysical based paper on magnetic fields, I suggest you have a look at an article by Arieh Konigl and Raquel Salmeron entitled The Effects of Large-Scale Magnetic Fields on Disk Formation and Evolution

    Although this paper discusses some aspects of protostellar disks, the relationship between them and large interstellar or galactic fields give a different perspective that the now antiquated ones once held by Peratt and Alfen.

    Those under the advisement of Jean in this story might like to take head of the nature of this linked astrophysical article by Konigl and Salmeron. It content mirrors very well the voices of reason who have moderate and realistic views on this subject.

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    @ Hon. Salacious B. Crumb,

    Hey, you might like to know that our ‘friend’ solrey has been whinging about you here.

  • Jean Tate

    Hon. Salacious B. Crumb,

    I firmly believe we should all be taking every opportunity to not only marvel at the successes in astrophysics that I, and other Universe Today writers, describe, but also explain the underlying science as well as we can. And it’s very pleasing to see that so many of those who comment on Universe Today stories do take so much trouble to do just that.

    mgmirkin seems very interested in plasma physics (google is everyone’s friend), and seems to be a pretty smart guy. Yet it’s obvious that he has yet to grasp one of the most basic aspects of the topic (see my comment above), despite a long history of interest in it (so google tells me).

    He also writes politely, so I have every expectation that he’ll do me the courtesy of responding to my comments and questions.

  • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

    Jean Tate:

    [MGgmirkin] also writes politely, so I have every expectation that he’ll do me the courtesy of responding to my comments and questions.

    *Crickets*

Previous post:

Next post: