ESO Image Reveals Galaxy Duo in Explosive Dance

Article written: 16 Mar , 2009
Updated: 24 Dec , 2015
by

The ‘peculiar galaxy’ Arp 261 has been imaged in unprecedented detail, revealing two galaxies in a slow motion — but highly chaotic and disruptive — close encounter. 

Arp 261 lies about 70 million light-years distant in the constellation of Libra, the Scales. The new close-up was captured by the ESO’s Very Large Telescope, at the Paranal Observatory in Chile.

Although individual stars are very unlikely to collide in such an interaction, the huge clouds of gas and dust certainly do crash into each other at high speed, leading to the formation of bright new clusters of very hot stars that are clearly seen in the picture. The paths of the existing stars in the galaxies are also dramatically disrupted, creating the faint swirls extending to the upper left and lower right of the image. Both interacting galaxies were probably dwarfs not unlike the Magellanic Clouds orbiting our own galaxy.

Arp 261 is listed in Halton Arp’s catalogue of Peculiar Galaxies that appeared in the 1960s, with the goal of chronicling objects in the sky that appear strange and may tell rewarding science stories. 

The images used to create the new picture of Arp 261 were not actually taken to study the interacting galaxies at all, but to investigate the properties of the inconspicuous object just to the right of the brightest part of Arp 261 and close to the center of the image. This is an unusual exploding star, called SN 1995N, that is thought to be the result of the final collapse of a massive star at the end of its life, a so-called core collapse supernova. SN 1995N is unusual because it has faded very slowly — and still shows clearly more than seven years after the explosion took place.

SN 1995N is also one of the few supernovae to have been observed to emit X-rays. It is thought that these unusual characteristics are a result of the exploding star being in a dense region of space so that the material blasted out from the supernova plows into it and creates X-rays.

Apart from the interacting galaxy and its supernova, the image also contains several other objects at wildly different distances from us. Starting very close to home, two small asteroids, in our Solar System between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter, happened to cross the images as they were being taken and show up as the red-green-blue trails at the left and top of the picture. The trails arise as the objects are moving during the exposures and also between the exposures through different colored filters. The asteroid at the top is number 14670 and the one to the left number 9735. They are probably less than 5 km (3 miles) across. The reflected sunlight from these small bodies takes about 15 minutes to reach Earth.

The next closest object is probably the apparently bright star at the bottom. It may look bright, but it is still about one hundred times too faint to be seen with the unaided eye. It is most likely a star rather like the Sun and about 500 light-years from us — 20 million times further away than the asteroids. Arp 261 itself, and the supernova, are about 140,000 times farther away than this star, but still in what astronomers would regard as our cosmic neighborhood. Much more distant still, perhaps some fifty to one hundred times further away than Arp 261, lies the cluster of galaxies visible on the right of the picture.

Videos of the unusual system are available here and here.

Source: ESO


35 Responses

  1. Yet another galaxy named after the greatest astronomer in world history or at least the most important astronomer living today. Halton Arp has been described as “a modern day Galileo.”

    He has almost singlehandedly debunked pre-Space Age mythology such as the Big Bang myth and the recessional redshift myth, with nothing but pure observation.

    Observation and the scientific method are something that mathematicians, astronomers, and cosmologists need to learn about from Halton Arp.

    “We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!” — Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998

    http://www.haltonarp.com/

  2. solrey says

    Arp is an unfortunate example of the rigid dogma that often permeates science. A respected American scientist, he has been working in Germany for years because he was trashed by the scientific community, denied telescope time and denied publication. All for pointing out flaws in the current paradigm, based on real scientific observation and investigation. He was even a student of Edwin Hubble, who apparently questioned the redshift strictly equals velocity/distance himself.
    Einstein was unsure about his own work.
    Any good scientist should be. They also should be open to being proven incorrect.
    Hans Alfven realized, through observational investigation, that his initial hypothesis of ‘frozen in’ magnetic fields in space plasma was incorrect. He changed the hypothesis to an active and dynamic one. But by then it was too late and the scientific community continued to treat magnetic fields as ‘frozen’, ignoring the new research by the scientist who’s idea it was in the first place.
    Dynamic magnetic fields in space did not fit their paradigm.
    While technology has continued to advance since the dawn of civilization, human nature has mostly remained the same.

  3. Solrey,

    A most excellent comment. I agree 100%.

  4. solrey says

    oills,
    Thanks. I totally agree with what you said too. It’s like shooting the messenger. I think that Halton Arp will be looked upon by historians as one who remained steadfast to what he knew was true, and helped usher in a new paradigm. Much like Galileo’s legacy.
    One of my favorite science quotes comes from Tesla:
    “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality”

    Math is basically just another language to learn. The stories can be either fictional or biographical.
    The fictional story is a result of imagination. Nothing wrong with imagination per se, imo.
    The biographical story is a result of investigation and observation.

    pi*R^2 can be viewed as a mathematical equation, or as a phrase in another language that describes the ‘footprint’ of a circle.
    I know that’s OT, but for some reason today, I was thinking about how similar math is to language, insofar as equations, variables and formulas form a numerical description of objects and events.

  5. Solrey,

    Here are some more mathematics quotes for you to ponder:

    “Plasma theorists have grown weary of mathematical legerdemain and are waiting for cosmologists to start thinking about empirical observations rather than continuing on this path toward mysticism.” — Stephen Smith, physicist, December 2008

    “The mathematicians of this world regard themselves as ‘physicists,’ yet they know next to nothing about Physics.” — Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

    “YouStupidRelativist.Com has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it is: an irrational religion.” — Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

    “Whenever I want to represent or depict the official version, I will refer to them as ‘mathematicians’ or ‘mathematical physicists’ or idiots or something like that. There are no physicists in mainstream ‘Physics.’ From Newton to Einstein to Hawking, they are all just mathematicians as far as Science and Physics are concerned.” — Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

    “In fact, Mathematics is a language that makes people stupid.” — Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

    “The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world.” — Bill Gaede, physicist, 2008

    “All I can say is, beware of geeks bearing formulas.” — Warren Buffett, financier, 2008

    “The computer models are constructed upon a shadowy kernel of ignorance.” — Wallace Thornhill, physicist, August 2008

    “Geometry is not physics.” — Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007

    “If natural philosophers had retained their primary role in physics, instead of having it usurped by mathematicians like Einstein, Hawking, and many others who jumped on the bandwagon, we might have fewer ‘visions of God’ in their ‘beautiful’ mathematical equations and a better grounding in the extent of our ignorance.” — Wallace Thornhill, physicist, October 2006

    “We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjectures.” — Hannes Alfvén, physicist, 1976

    “[Einstein’s] ideas with regard to the nature of gravitation as being … a warping or distortion of space in the proximity of material bodies seem to be a mathematical pipe-dream, purely and simply, although doubtless very creditable indeed to the gentleman’s mathematical ability….” — Gottfried De Purucker, theosophist, 1973

    “In mathematics you don’t understand things. You just get used to them.” — John Von Neumann, mathematician, 1956

    “…magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory [General Relativity] is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists…” — Nikola Tesla, physicist, July 1935

    “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” — Albert Einstein, mathematician, January 1921

    “…there is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.” — Alfred N. Whitehead, mathematician/philosopher, 1911

    “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1908

    “Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we’re talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” — Bertrand Russell, physicist/philosopher, 1901

    “A mathematician is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat which isn’t there.” – Charles R. Darwin, biologist, 18–

    “When a mathematician engaged in investigating physical actions and results has arrived at his own conclusions, may they not be expressed in common language as fully, clearly, and definitely as in mathematical formulae? If so, would it not be a great boon to such as well to express them so — translating them out of their hieroglyphics that we might also work upon them by experiment?” — Michael Faraday, physicist, 1857

  6. neil says

    Oh My God, yet another troll thread from the idiot above with pages and pages of random comments

    Oilismaster, Why dont you start you own blog, and never come back here again, trust me this site will be the better for it

    Alternativly, can we get this moron banned? i know you (universe today) like free speach and all but he (and a few others) are runining this site with the same old rubbish…

  7. solrey says

    Oills,
    Right on!
    Math is an important tool, but that’s just what it is, a tool…nothing more, nothing less.
    I was an honors math student, btw. I comprehend it and use it, but I don’t worship it.
    Thanks for the excellent quotes.
    peace,
    Tim

  8. solrey says

    neil,
    What’s wrong with a little scientific discourse? My experience is that most EU advocates are among the most open minded, critically thinking people I’ve ever encountered.

    Would you have ostracized Copernicus or Galileo for their interpretation of empirical observation, like others of the time did?
    Would you have defended the ‘flat earthers’ of the time? Do you discount the findings of Halton Arp as well?

    This site is well served by open, unfettered discussion.
    I applaud those that think outside the box. 🙂

  9. solrey says

    neil,
    By your own definition, you are a troll. Truth hurts, eh?

  10. Luke Garratt says

    I have no problem with “trolls”, if they are that. People are still able to converse in ignorance of these individuals if they wish.

    Sometimes it is enlightening to become the teacher to those who question current understandings – someone wise once said you learn more teaching than you do being taught.

    Having said that, I’m not exactly sure Arp debunked the Big Bang theory – there is plenty of observational data to show the universe is indeed moving away from us and expanding.

  11. Neil,

    If you’re honestly interested in my blog you can always click on my name.

    Luke,

    In response to, “there is plenty of observational data to show the universe is indeed moving away from us and expanding.”

    Like what? You believe in geocentrism?

  12. solrey says

    luke,
    The idea of the universe moving away from us and expanding as a result of some fanciful ‘big bang’ is analogous to the Ptolemaic view of a geocentric universe.
    The Big Bang hypothesis was conceived and promoted by a Catholic Priest. This was a clever way to reconcile the differences between science and religion.
    Not unlike Constantine convening the council of Nicea to resolve the differences between the ‘christians’ and the ‘pagans’, which had been an ongoing battle for centuries.
    Many priests buggered little boys for hundreds of years due to a no questions asked attitude of absolute trust.
    Now we rely on faith, that fanciful mathematical models are the ultimate truth.
    We all risk getting buggered if we don’t question the ‘status quo’.

  13. Luke Garratt says

    Like what? You believe in geocentrism?

    ——

    No.

    Take a balloon and fill it to a certain size. Pick any two unique points within the balloon (or more, it doesn’t matter). Fill the balloon further so it is a larger size. The distance between those two points (or any number of points) has now increased ie they have all moved away from each other. This is true for any points you wish to pick – hence you do not have to be centric to observe objects moving away from you in an expanding universe.

  14. Luke Garratt says

    solrey, it may be prudent to question the status quo but open your mind too much and your brain will fall out…

  15. neil says

    Solrey,
    im a troll? whatever, i just get annoyed with the idiot

  16. DrFlimmer says

    @ OiM, solrey and probably Anaconda:

    Einstein gave birth to quantum mechanics in 1905 with his explanation of the “photo-effect”. He received his Nobel Prize for this work. But he disliked the concept of quantum mechanics and its really weird consequences like the Uncertainty Principle. And just because this (without any doubt) great man doubted the effects of quantum mechanics, we all shall abandon it? Without quantum mechanics we were not able to make this discussion, because there would be no internet, no good computers, no plasma screens, etc etc.

    Btw: You distrust theoretical physics, do you not? I think that, because of your comments about mathematics being “just” a tool. But on the other hand: Have you ever wondered how many fruitful things came out of theoretical works? Just one example: In 1932 Dirac found an equation that describes the electron. But the same equation has another solution: The same particle but the “negative” charge, in this case the positive one since the electron has a negative charge. He called the particle the positron and it was discovered only a few years later. It was the first anti-matter particle that was found and it was postulated by theoretical works. The same story holds for the neutrino – it was also postulated by theoretical works, but in this case to “save” the law of conservation of energy which seemed to be violated by the beta-decay.

    And also GR has its applications. Probably you all have a GPS-receiver. This little thing would not work without GR. The Wikipedia article explains the effect very good – just take a look there. Also all our satellites and space probes would not be on the right course if GR wouldn’t work. Also the light bending effect has been observed: In 1919 during a solar eclipse, it was the proof of GR. Another example: Mercury has a strange orbit around the sun that could not be explained by Newton’s theory. But the equations of GR just make the right predictions.

    And now to your friends Arp and Alfvén. Both had probably great ideas.
    About Arp: A professor of mine told me that his ideas were debated very extensively in the 90’s. But then we gathered new data and found that Arp was wrong. His findings were just a result of outdated data and bad statistics. That’s probably bad but true.
    About Alfvén: He was definitely a great man, without any doubt. But he was a plasma physicist and not an astronomer or astrophysicist. I would not try to deal with a problem about solid state physics, because I haven’t studied it and I am nothing but an expert in that field. And the same is true for Alfvén as is for Arp: He just didn’t have the data we have today. There hasn’t been a COBE or WMAP that measured the Cosmic Microwave Background in such a great detail.
    A propos CMB: How do you explain it? Anaconda once gave a not very satisfactory answer. He said something about the heliopause that it acts like a window and let pass this radiation in such a way that we detect it as we do. But how can such a fluctuation and definitely non-isotropic thing like the heliopause be accounted for the most uniform and isotropic blackbody spectrum that we ever detected? The Big Bang Theory gives a rather easy answer. What is the answer of PC, EU or PU?

  17. Luke,

    You cleverly avoided the question of what evidence, if any, suggests the universe is expanding. According to Hubble and Arp there is no such evidence.

    As far as your analogy of the balloon, are you saying the universe is balloon shaped? What evidence do you have of that? If the universe is hollow then what is inside it? Do two points on the o-ring of the mouth piece you’re inflating move away from eachother also? If they moved too far away from eachother they would tear your mouth apart and the balloon would deflate.

    As you said, open your mind too much and your brain will fall out.

  18. formulaterp says

    OilIsMastery Says

    “If you’re honestly interested in my blog you can always click on my name. ”

    Love your blog. Especially liked your link to the Expanding Earth website by Neal Adams. You know the theory has to be true when a comic book illustrator comes up with it.

    Hopefully my Fortress of Solitude was built with enough adamantium to survive the Giant Lightning Bolts from Space.

  19. Dr. Flimmer,

    “And just because this (without any doubt) great man doubted the effects of quantum mechanics, we all shall abandon it?”

    Absolutely not. Similarly you should not believe in gravitation or the Big Bang simply because Einstein did.

    “In 1932 Dirac found an equation that describes the electron. But the same equation has another solution: The same particle but the “negative” charge, in this case the positive one since the electron has a negative charge. He called the particle the positron and it was discovered only a few years later. It was the first anti-matter particle that was found and it was postulated by theoretical works.”

    While it’s true the positron was predicted by Dirac, the prediction has nothing to do with quantum mechanics or mathematics. It was predicted based upon knowledge of opposite electric charges. And it was discovered and named, not by Dirac, but by Anderson and Chao and quite by chance.

    “And also GR has its applications. Probably you all have a GPS-receiver. This little thing would not work without GR. The Wikipedia article explains the effect very good – just take a look there. Also all our satellites and space probes would not be on the right course if GR wouldn’t work. Also the light bending effect has been observed: In 1919 during a solar eclipse, it was the proof of GR. Another example: Mercury has a strange orbit around the sun that could not be explained by Newton’s theory. But the equations of GR just make the right predictions.”

    Nonsense. GPS has nothing to do with General Relativity. Wikipedia should rename itself the Encylopedia of Bias and Inobjectivity. It is strictly edited by fundamentalist censors. Sattelites and probes work great without General Relativity.

    Straight lines, parallel lines, Euclidean triangles, and Euclidean architecture all falsify General Relativity because according to General Relativity straight lines, parallel lines, Euclidean triangles are impossible.

    General Relativity is also mathematically impossible because of Lobachevsky Theorem 20, which demonstrates, “If in any triangle the sum of the three angles is equal to two right angles, so is this the case for every other triangle.”

    “we gathered new data and found that Arp was wrong. His findings were just a result of outdated data and bad statistics.”

    What data are you referring to?

    “And the same is true for Alfvén as is for Arp: He just didn’t have the data we have today.”

    What data would that be?

    “A propos CMB: How do you explain it?”

    Gamow predicted CMB radiation of 50 degrees Kelvin. Therefore the Big Bang hypothesis has been empirically falisified. Peratt however predicted the CMB radiation precisely at 2.8 degrees Kelvin thus confirming Plasma Cosmology.

  20. Formulaterp,

    “Love your blog.”

    Thanks.

    “Especially liked your link to the Expanding Earth website by Neal Adams. You know the theory has to be true when a comic book illustrator comes up with it.”

    You say that based upon ignorance and a lack of education. If a comic book artist says 2+2= 4 that does nto mean 2+2=5.

    Neal Adams didn’t “come up with it.” Charles Darwin (perhaps you’ve heard of him?) came up with it.

  21. solrey says

    drflimmer,
    I can only speak for myself, but you’re taking what I’m saying to an extreme that I never implied. Of course pure theoretical work is an important tool, as is math, imagination, observational instruments, etc. All of the scientific tools are important, but no single one is more useful than the whole toolset. Quite often, more than one theory, with the accompanying math, correctly describes the same observation or dataset. Sometimes observational data are molded to fit a theory and I think that happens quite frequently these days.
    Various EU/PC scientists predicted the CMBR. More acurately than GR folks, btw. Peratts birkeland current galaxy simulation actually developed a CMBR component that was nearly identical to what’s observed. I think that the dominant hypothesis within EU circles is that the CMBR is the electronic ‘noise’ from the vast network of current carrying Birkeland filaments (magnetically aligned field) in the cosmos. Another idea, perhaps what Anaconda was trying to describe, is that charged particles are accelerated within the plasma double layer that is the Heliopause (not a ‘bowshock’) and could be energetic enough to produce the electronic ‘noise’ of the CMB. Based on Peratts simulation producing a CMB, imo the former is the correct hypothesis.
    Actually, new observations are confirming Arps contention that certain objects with discordant redshift are in fact connected by energetic filaments.
    As for Alfven being a plasma physicist, One of the great things about EU is that it’s multidisciplinary. If the universe really is driven electrically, what better scientific discipline than plasma physics to study it?
    As for your ‘proof’ of GR, anything moving through a magnetic field is going to be affected by that field. There is evidence for using magnetic fields to induce atoms towards a ‘ground’ state. Could this be what causes the clocks to run just a bit slower?
    What I’m saying is that you can’t say that this is proof of GR until other hypotheses are tested also.

  22. Solrey,

    Gerrit Verschuur, recognized as the world’s greatest radio astronomer, says WMAP is caused by hydrogen in our own galaxy.

    See here: http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang

  23. DrFlimmer says

    Well, solrey, but Perratt had one advatage above the Big Bang model that was published in the 50s and proposed a background radiation temperature of about 50K. In the BigBang theory it is highly important how old the universe is. And in the 50s the number was not more than a guess. My parents learned that the universe should be about 5billion years old. If you insert that number it is no wonder that you come up with a temperature of about 50K.
    Perratt however made his simulation in the 80s, when the temperature was well known already.

    But I have something to say about the simulation (or probably one simulation, which is about galaxy formation). I will quote Tom Marking, who made the following statements over at Bad Astronomy in the “Roar of the Centaur” thread:

    # Tom Marking Says:
    February 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am

    The following are some excerpts from:

    ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERACTING, MAGNETIZED, GALACTIC PLASMAS
    by Anthony L. Peratt and James C. Green
    Astrophysics and Space Science 91 (1983)

    and my reactions to them. Of course, we are obliged to review all of the sources that Anaconda gives us meticulously whereas he doesn’t have to even read the stuff we give him and shows no evidence of ever reading any of them (but that’s a different gripe).

    “The geometry of the postulated galactic cloud model is cylindrical and contains, as the essential ingredient, and electric current whose flow is primarily in the axial direction but also having some degree of heliticity (Figure IV.8 of Alfven, 1981). Also present is a dipole magnetic field whose field lines are necessarily axial within the plasma”

    So Peratt is setting up a Birkeland current artificially by aligning the current flow with a magnetic dipole field by fiat. There is no reason given why this is expected to be a naturally occurring configuration. It is completely artificial, especially the cylindrical shape.

    “The galactic current is a result of an electromotive force (emf) induced by a rotating plasma in a magnetic field (Alfven, 1981). The energy of rotation thus represents the fundamental supply source. The current path is along the galactic axis of rotation, then fans out at distances greatly exceeding the extent of the denser plasma and returns back along the plane of rotation and also along the dipole field lines”

    O.K. So Peratt is essentially saying that the energy source that drives the whole thing is rotational kinetic energy of the plasma object rotating about its axis. Also note, the current comes back along the midplane of the object which in the case of quasars and active galaxies would mean perpendicular to the jets. Why is it we don’t see any returning jet in this direction?

    “In accordance with the basic model, an equal number of electrons and ions are arranged into a cylindrical column. The simulation is set up on SPLASH, a 3D, electromagnetic, and relativistic particle simulation code (Buneman et al., 1980). A 32 grid mesh defines the simulation spatial extent and, typically, the column extends 32 grids in length and has a diameter of 6 grids.”

    For two 35-kiloparsec diameter cylinders located 80 kiloparsecs apart (center-to-center) the extent of the grid is 115 kiloparsecs. Dividing it into 32 grid spaces means each grid element is 3,600 parsecs = 11,700 light-years wide. Note, that Peratt relies on someone else’s code. He didn’t write his own electromagnetic code to do the simulation.

    “With regard to computer economy, the time scale of the evolution is speeded up as fast as temporal resolution reasonably allows; the initial electron temperatures are in the 1-10 keV range and the mass ratio is mi/me = 16 (time scale compression, necessary for affordable simulation, can be achieved by decreasing the ion’s rest mass in relation the electron’s rest mass. The use of an artificial mass ratio will not significantly change the results of this study…”

    Oh boy! Peratt changes the rest mass of a proton from 1,840 times the electron rest mass to just 16 times the electron rest mass (reduced by a factor of 115). He does this in order to save computer time and then he claims it doesn’t affect the result of the simulation. For the electrons we have:

    T = (2/3)*K / k-Boltzmann

    where T is temperature in Kelvin, K is kinetic energy in eV, and k-Boltzmann is Boltzmann’s constant = 8.617E-5 eV per Kelvin. Thus a range of 1-10 keV is a temperature range of 7.7E6 to 7.7E7 Kelvin. The temperature of the plasma is in the millions of degrees. It will have HUGE radiative thermal losses that are not accounted for in Peratt’s model.

    (To Be Continued)

    # Tom Marking Says:
    February 4th, 2009 at 11:49 am

    Continuation of Fisking of:

    ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERACTING, MAGNETIZED, GALACTIC PLASMAS
    by Anthony L. Peratt and James C. Green
    Astrophysics and Space Science 91 (1983)

    “Fig. 1. Electric and magnetic radiation energies in arbitrary energy units. The unit vector z-hat defines the direction of the column azis.”

    We are presented with 3 charts showing electric radiation Ex, electric radiation Ey, and magnetic radiation Bz versus something called T which I took to mean time. The time axis goes from 0 to 1000 but I have no idea what the units are. They could be seconds, milliseconds, or millions of years. The y-axes go from 0 to 1 and they are in arbitrary units making them nearly useless in interpreting the results. All 3 curves have a sharp spike near the beginning and then a slower increase but with considerable statistical noise which is probably coming from instabilities in the numerical model. I have no idea why electric and magnetic radiation are separate since typically EM radiation has both the electric and magnetic fields together in space oriented at right angles to one another. So these charts are totally useless.

    “The electrons and ions, in response to the applied electric field, are accelerated in opposite directions and current starts to flow, and we record the conversion of the field associated potential energy into kinetic, magnetostatic, and radiation energies. Early in this stage of development the total radiated energy represents less than 1% of the magnetostatic energy which itself amounts to about 1% of the particle kinetic energies.”

    So the amount of radiation is miniscule at the beginning despite the charged particles being millions of degrees in temperature. Yeah, right. Apparently Peratt has never heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law since he doesn’t mention it anywhere in his report.

    “In addition to deforming the plasmas, this produces a burst of synchrotron radiation (magnetobremsstrahlung) whose high-frequency electric field is polarized in the x-y plane, as shown in Figure 1. The radiation is thus directed along a narrow beam in the direction of instantaneous electron motion and linearly polarized at right angles to the magnetic field lines…
    For Cygnus A, the ‘prototype’ radio galaxy, we assume a mass M = 1.0E41 kg (while noting that all mass estimates are model dependent), volume V = 1.0E63 cubic meters, separation 2a = 2.44E21 meters (79 kpc), and length and width l = w = 1.0E21 meters (35 kpc). For a relative velocity between plasmas of 1000 km/sec (Shklovsky, 1960; Perola, 1981), we find Iz = 2.15E19 amperes and B-theta = mu-0*I/omega = 2.5E-8 teslas (2.5E-4 gauss)…Equating the relative velocity v to the computational distance/time quotient gives a Cygnus A time to development of 1.5E15 seconds (4.6E7 years). Thus, the entire epoch shown in Figure 2 corresponds to some 1.0E8 years while the radiation burst lasts 2.4E14 seconds (8.0E6 years). The concomitant magnetic energy is 2.5E53 joules (2.5E60 ergs) while the total simulation magnetostatic energy is 350 Arbitrary Energy Units (AEU). Thus, 1 AEU = 7.1E50 joules.”

    Note what Peratt is doing here. It’s rather subtle and it took me a while to pick up on it. He’s running his simulation in arbitrary units. Then, after the results are in he’s scaling them to match numbers from Cygnus A. So he never actually plugged in the basic parameters for Cygnus A into his calculation such as diameter, etc. He plugged in arbitrary units and then attempts to scale the results after the fact.

    “With increasing flow, the parallel Iz currents produce an attractive force between columns”

    Well, it’s well established that parallel Birkeland currents will attract each other with a strength proportional to 1/r. Antiparallel Birkeland currents will repel each other with a strength proportional to 1/r. Thus, for Peratt’s simulation to have any interaction at all the two cylinders must have parallel current, not antiparallel.

    “The total kinetic energy of the electrons during burst is 8.78E4 AEU = 6.26E55 joules (6.26E62 ergs), which yields an average energy per electron E-bar = 218 MeV.”

    Peratt has lost me here. This new statement seems to conflict with his previous statement that the electrons have energies in the range 1-10 keV. Maybe this is the energy of only certain electrons associated with the initial synchrotron burst but I don’t know.

    “The results of this research, believed to represent the largest computational study in astrophysics to date, replicate the essential features of double radio sources, peculiar, and spiral galaxies, but do not appear to be in agreement with the ‘big-bang’ creation theory of the Universe. Instead, the simulations strongly support an inhomogenous version of the Klein world model that proposes a zero-state universe consisting of magnetized plasma or ambiplasma (cf. Alfven and Klein, 1982; and the earlier references therein.”

    LOL. So Peratt says his results are consistent with ambiplasma which Anaconda rejects. He claims his results are inconsistent with the Big Bang even though his model doesn’t deal with cosmology at all.

    So to rehash, my findings concerning Peratt’s model are these:

    1.) arbitrary and unrealistic initial conditions
    2.) incorrect mass for the proton (off by 2 orders of magnitude)
    3.) Stefan-Boltzmann radiative effects not taken into account
    4.) use of arbitrary units and scaling of results afterward
    5.) statistical jitter in results caused by poor numerical modeling
    6.) inconsistent statements about electron energies

  24. DrFlimmer says

    Note to add:

    I think that the dominant hypothesis within EU circles is that the CMBR is the electronic ‘noise’ from the vast network of current carrying Birkeland filaments (magnetically aligned field) in the cosmos

    Hm. That would mean that the whole skies should be filled with Birkeland currents, since the radiation is highly isotropic. But I would guess that we should detect more of those currents concentrated to the galactic plane, since they are supposed to keep the galaxy together. (Btw: How can such magnetic fields and Birkeland currents keep neutral hydrogen clouds (which we can detect by the 21cm line) on track in a galaxy? They are moving right as we expect them to do.)

    Actually, new observations are confirming Arps contention that certain objects with discordant redshift are in fact connected by energetic filaments.

    I’ve heard that they are a mere coincidence, they are just positioned at the same line of sight. What about quasars that are not close to other galaxies? (I am not having a specific example, and I don’t want to search for one right now, but I bet there is one)

    As for your ‘proof’ of GR, anything moving through a magnetic field is going to be affected by that field.

    Yes, indeed. They are pushed to the side, because of the Lorentz force. That’s all.

    There is evidence for using magnetic fields to induce atoms towards a ‘ground’ state.

    If you are refering to the quantum mechanical Zeeman effect: yes. It breaks the degeneracy of the electrons in an atom and splits the energetic states. It was the first experiment that showed that electrons must have a spin.

    Could this be what causes the clocks to run just a bit slower?

    I have never heard that clocks are effected by the presence of magnetic fields. That would mean, that if I put a strong magnet near a clock it should run faster or slower. That is not the case.
    The first and only theory that ever predicted that clocks run different in different frames is relativity. SR predicts that clocks are running slower if they are in a moving frame (and SR is tested so well and extensively that there is really no disput about that theory (the spin of electrons, f.e., is a consequence of SR)). GR predicts that the clocks are running faster if it is in a frame of lower gravitational potential. For GPS both predictions must be taken into account. And the predictions are just right, absolutly no bias.

    You are right, that there could be another theory that discribes the same effect. But where is it? Present it!

    And as I said, it’s not only GPS that works according to GR. Mercury is another famous example.

  25. Olaf says

    One equation: EU=BS!
    Cheers!

  26. DrFlimmer says

    @solrey

    Quite often, more than one theory, with the accompanying math, correctly describes the same observation or dataset.

    May I ask for one or two examples? (Probably not of a cosmological issue.)

  27. solrey says

    More than one theory can correctly describe the same empirical data, but that doesn’t mean that they all correctly describe the nature of cause or provide accurate predictions.
    For example, climate change. Both the solar energy dominated and AGW models agree the empirical data confirm a rise in average global temps, melting ice, etc, and that there have been fluctuations in climate throughout the Earths history, but the causations and predictions of the two models are quite different. Now there appears to be a flatenning into a cooling trend observed over the past decade with a reinvigorated arctic ice sheet. Both models can claim that this can be expected. Time will tell which is correct.
    There are quite a few different hypotheses within the Big Bang model, as well as hypotheses disputing that model, they all claim to have supporting empirical data.
    How long did the Ptolemaic and Copernican models co-exist? Around 60 years I think.
    Many scientific truth’s we hold today are the end product of competing theories washing out over the course of new observations and research. That’s healthy science, imo.

  28. DrFlimmer says

    Many scientific truth’s we hold today are the end product of competing theories washing out over the course of new observations and research. That’s healthy science, imo.

    That’s true. But what you have to discuss are theories that make good predictions and can explain phenomena. As much as I have seen from PU (etc) it does not fit that criterium very well.

    I.e.: PU denies the existence of gravitational lenses. But I wonder what that is:

    hubblesite.org/gallery/album/the_universe/pr1995014a/titles/true/

    Light is not affected by electromagnetic fields, there is no evidence to support that, so what is it that bends around there in the picture? GR gives a good explanation. What has PU to say abut it?

    Or what about quasars? I know Arp proposed them to be “ejected cores of galaxies”. But take a look at this picture:

    hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/pr2005012q/

    There are clearly galaxies around the quasars and the quasars happen to sit right in the center.

    I could come up with another example. Anaconda told me that the sun is on a 10 billion volt potential.
    I’ve made a brief calculation (which is still rather long, I don’t want to repost it here. If you want to read it, then check the “hubble finds evidence for dark matter” thread on this page) in which I found out, that we should detect highly relativistic electrons entering the sun – what we definitly do not! Also I don’t think that the sun is on a potential, since the solar wind is moving rather uniformly (meaning that electrons and protons in the same spot are moving with the same velocity away from the sun) which it should not, if the sun is charged.

    So we have three claims of PU (etc) that seems to be incorrect to me.

    And to your example of global warming:
    Well, true or not, I always say that we only have ONE chance, and we should not take it!

  29. solrey says

    As far as predictions go, Wal Thornhill accurately predicted the results of the Deep Impact mission, while NASA was pretty much surprised with the data. They also had no comment when asked about Thornhills accurate predictions.

    The electrons flowing into the sun operate as a drift current, so relativistic velocities are not expected.
    The solar wind is not even close to being uniform. It even stopped completely for a couple of days a few years ago. It fluctuates constantly, both in speed and density. The positive ions actually accelerate with increasing distance until they reach somewhere around Jupiter I think.

    There is a lot of electrical activity being detected in our solar environment which deserves more detailed investigation.

    I’m highly skeptical of man-made climate change, but I’ve also been an active environmentalist most of my life. I’d like to see a reasonable effort made to clean up the mess we’re making in general. I’m worried that some of the ‘knee jerk’ responses to global warming might cause more harm than good in the long run. Compact fluorescents come to mind. The mercury they contain means they are handled as toxic waste. Some of these ideas that I’ve heard to change the albedo of the atmosphere to counteract warming are downright scarry and stupid.

    Anyways, have a good one.

  30. Excalibur says

    “There is a lot of electrical activity being detected in our solar environment which deserves more detailed investigation.”

    True, but that still doesnt make PC/PU/EU a working theory…

  31. DrFlimmer says

    The electrons flowing into the sun operate as a drift current, so relativistic velocities are not expected.

    Yes, but it comes out of the mathematics. Here is the calculation:

    So, first of all: The sun has a luminosity of L=3,846*10^26 J/s. Since the sun is fairly stable (I think, you agree on this), the same amount of energy must “enter” the sun somehow. “Mainstream” science says that this energy is created in the core by fusion. You say it is provided by currents entering the sun from the outside.
    A current is charge per unit time, or in a formula: I=Q/t, where I is the current, Q the charge and t is the time, which we consider to be 1 second, because the luminosity is the energy leaving the sun in one second and we want to get the current that is needed to provide this energy.
    So, what we need is the charge that enters the sun in one second.
    One knows that the energy of a current is charge times voltage (or the potential drop between the sun and the surrounding medium where the electrons are supposed to come from), or again as a formula: W=Q*U.
    We want the charge, so this reads: Q=W/U.
    W=3,846*10^26 J. What we need is the voltage. Here I refer to a statement that you made some time ago:
    “The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it – probably in the order of 10 billion volts.”
    That means U=10^10 V. We get the result:
    Q=3,846*10^16 C.
    How many electrons are needed for such a charge? That’s an easy task. Just divide the charge by the unit charge:
    N=3,846*10^16 / 1,6*10^-19 = 2,4*10^35.
    That is not a small number. Finally the current we get:
    I=Q/t= 3,846*10^16 A.
    I suppose that this is a big number, too.
    The question is how can one detect these electrons? One can measure the flux of electrons, of course. Probably this is the only chance, because the electrons do not need a magnetic field to guide them. And why not?
    Well, we have a potential drop. This results in an electric field that accelerates the electrons. The electrons will move along the electric field lines and will enter the sun that way. Magnetic fields are not necessary to channel the electrons. But since the electric field accelerates the electrons we can calculate the energy and the speed an electron will have when it enters the sun.
    The kinetic energy an electron can gain in an electrostatic field is: T=e*U=1,6*10^-9 J.
    That is a huge number as we will see in a minute.
    The mass-energy of an electron (the energy an electron has at rest) is E0=m(el)*c^2=9,1*10^-31 * (3*10^8)^2 J=8,19*10^-14 J.
    The kinetic energy is much higher than the mass-energy. That means the electron is highly relativistic. We can calculate the ratio b=v/c, b=1 means the electron would move with a speed equaling light-speed c.
    b=sqrt(2*E0*T+T^2)/(E0+T)=0,999999998
    That is really close to the speed of light.
    If the electrons would be guided by a magnetic field, I think the magnetic field has to be very strong.
    The distance between the interstellar medium and the sun is about d=100 AU=1,5*10^13 m. In the rest of frame of the electrons this distance contracts to about:
    d’=sqrt(1-b^2)*d=7,7*10^8m.
    That is a contraction of about five orders of magnitude! Since the electrons are moving just a little bit under the speed of light with c=3*10^8 m/s, it takes the electrons just 2,5 seconds to reach the sun (yes, the acceleration will result in a longer time, but this is only a rough estimate and we get a feeling for the magnitude). The magnetic field just doesn’t have the time to interact with the electrons unless it is very strong.
    But let’s assume that the electrons are guided by a magnetic field of the strength B.
    Ivan3man gave us a link where we can find how to calculate the synchrotron power of the electrons. I put the link in my name.
    The power for one electron is:
    P(el)=2/3 * e^4/c^3/m(el)^2 * b^2/(1-b^2) * B^2
    Inserting our previous results and the numbers of the constants we get:
    P(el)=3,247*10^-33 * B^2 W.
    To get the total power we must multiply this with the number of electrons we have also calculated before:
    P=N*P(el)=779,27*B^2 W.
    This is the energy in ONE second we would detect if the electrons are guided by a magnetic field. I do not have a reasonable number for the strength of the magnetic field, but as discussed before I would consider it to be fairly strong. To give a comparison: The protons in the LHC will be accelerated rather close to the speed of light. To bend them around the tunnel one needs a magnetic field of about 5T, that is rather much since the earth’s magnetic field is of order 10^-6 T on the surface of the earth.
    Conclusion:
    The fluxes, currents and energies are rather high. Since we do not measure anything of that sort (we are detecting high energetic protons and ions but in very few numbers in that energy-range) I think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the sun is not powered by an external current of electrons (regardless the fact the sun is not on a potential because the solar wind (electrons and protons/ions) moves very uniformly).

    And to clearify my comments:
    With “uniform” I didn’t mean that it is always the same. What I mean is:
    Take a random spot around the sun. You will measure a certain density of ions (including protons) and electrons. The densities are more or less the same, so we have the same amount of negative and positive charges. And both species will have more or less the same velocity away from the sun.
    It doesn’t matter if the solar wind is fluctuating or dies off. The fact is that it always consists of the same amount of electrons and ions with the same velocity. That is not explainable if the sun is charged!

  32. Excalibur,

    “True, but that still doesnt make PC/PU/EU a working theory…”

    Why not?

    Why don’t you believe in electricity and magnetism?

    Why don’t you believe in electrons and ions?

  33. Excalibur says

    OilsMastery:

    I am utterly convinced there are electricity, magnetism, electrons and ions.

    That still does not prove PC/PU/EU theories being correct, as those are also included in standard scientific theory including a number of other things that have been observed.

    But standard theories have the advantage, among others (and this is a major simplification in terms), to explain how satellites can be put into orbit around the earth, and here the OilIsMastery-version of EU fails completely.

    And noone have observed any galactic scale Birkeland-currents, they are fiction.

    OilIsMastery:
    Do you intend to prove the universe was created by a creator?

  34. Excalibur,

    “I am utterly convinced there are electricity, magnetism, electrons and ions.

    That still does not prove PC/PU/EU theories being correct.”

    Well at least you’re “utterly convinced” even though you don’t think it’s proven correct.

    “But standard theories have the advantage, among others (and this is a major simplification in terms), to explain how satellites can be put into orbit around the earth, and here the OilIsMastery-version of EU fails completely.”

    How so?

    “And noone have observed any galactic scale Birkeland-currents, they are fiction.”

    HIlarious; rather your observations and wisdom are fiction: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Cygnus-loop.gif

    “Do you intend to prove the universe was created by a creator?”

    You must be confusing me with Newton, Lemaitre, and Gamow.

  35. Excalibur says

    ROTFLMAO!

    Oils believes an image of a boundary shockwave is evidence of galactic scale Birkeland-currents.

    No wait, he is diverting again Always this diversion, never any answers…

    Reminds me about Zetatalk and Nancy, something that in the end just seemed to be a way of “Making money through sophisticated fraud”. I wonder if that is the plot here, gain an audience, get some donations, divert-divert-divert, get more donations, make a book and sell, proceeds to some non-profit organization with uncertain ownership…. It does look so familiar!

Leave a Reply