2a4. Galactic Filaments: CC Website Articles
Baltimore, MD, USA
Sir Isaac Newton gave us the original notion that gravity is the organizing principle in all of astronomy.1
By the late 1800s, scientists had developed the ideal gas laws, and qualified Newton in saying that gravity definitely pulls in, but hydrostatic pressure (as a function of heat) also pushes back out. So the balance of these forces determines whether or not a dusty plasma will undergo gravitational collapse. If the gravity is strong and/or the gas pressure is weak, collapse will occur.2,3,4
The first indication that this was not a complete theory came from evidence that a dusty plasma is more likely to collapse if there has been a supernova nearby. If gravity and gas pressure are the only two factors, then either the supernova added mass to the dusty plasma, and/or removed heat. It is certainly true that the ejecta from a supernova will add mass. But the thermalization of the momentum of the relativistic particles will add a lot more heat. Explosions actually disperse matter; they don't cause condensation.
Then, in the mid-1980s, high-precision, space-based instrumentation enabled accurate estimates of the actual amount of matter in dusty plasmas. Gravity was found to be somewhere between 1/5 and 1/20 of the force necessary to cause the collapses.
To absorb the anomaly without having to redo 350 years of work, scientists invented cold dark matter (CDM) as a new source of gravity.5
Cleverly designed to not be detectable any other way, the quantity of CDM in any given region of the Universe can be set equal to the gravitational anomaly. But CDM is turning into a false economy, because it simply does not behave as "missing mass".
CDM is credited with exerting gravitational force on dusty plasmas, causing their collapse. It also supplies 4/5 of the centripetal force that keeps spiral galaxies organized. But CDM does not itself collapse, nor does it accumulate around the aggregates that it creates (i.e., the "cuspy halo
" problem). In other words, there is no concentration of CDM around planets, stars, black holes, or at the centers of galaxies. This constitutes a violation of Newton's 3rd
law of motion, which states that when a body exerts a force on another body, that other body exerts the same force on the first body (just in the opposite direction). If CDM exerts force on other bodies, why don't they exert force on it? We could solve the problem if we could say that one of the properties of CDM is that it likes to be diffuse. But then we'd expect it to be thoroughly distributed throughout the Universe. As such, its gravitational force, coming from all directions, would cancel itself out, and it would be completely
undetectable. Since the missing force cannot come from a diffuse source, this problem is intractable, by definition.
CDM also lacks inertial forces, since objects moving through it experience no friction, which would surely be detectable if it was 4/5 of the matter in the Universe.
So CDM really only displays 1/2 of one of the properties of mass: it exerts gravitational force on other objects, but it does not respond in turn to their gravity, nor does it have inertia. Calling it "matter" is actually just bad semantics. In reality, all that we really have is a major gravitational anomaly, coming from an unidentified force. The proper search for the source of this force should start simply with an enumeration of its properties.
Baltimore, MD, USA
Due to the presence of electric and magnetic fields, some researchers believe that electric currents form the filaments, perhaps by the magnetic pinch effect.6,7,8
There are three main criticisms to the Magnetic Pinch model. First, net charge separations on such scales shouldn't be possible. Realistic charging mechanisms (e.g., high speeds in magnetic fields,9
or Debye sheaths), produce ionized particles, but the charge separations are local, and do not produce currents. Second, if a current did
flow on such a scale, it would find less resistance in empty space than in dusty plasmas. Third, even if the current somehow preferred the resistance of the filament, and did
consolidate some matter, it would do so selectively, on the basis of electric charge, where the greater the charge, the greater the magnetic pinch effect — yet the greater the charge, the more the Coulomb repulsion that will prevent condensation.
An alternative hypothesis is that electric currents are not causes of plasma collapse, but rather, they are effects. The cause is proposed to be the electric force in a "like-likes-like" configuration, where the net attraction in a series of filaments is greater than in a spherical dusty plasma of the same volume, due to the lack of opposing forces. The effect is that a spherical plasma might first resolve into filaments, and then the filaments might collapse. The movement of the quasi-neutral plasma then looks like an electric current, because opposite charges behave differently in motion.
Baltimore, MD, USA
The question of what keeps stars organized is non-trivial. To understand the issue, we can look at the numbers for the Sun. It condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037
The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018
, meaning a compression ratio of 5.31 × 1019
. If we multiply 10 K by that ratio, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020
K. Needless to say, that's way out of range for condensed matter. And the actual temperature of the Sun varies from 6.00 × 103
K at the surface to 1.50 × 107
K in the core (in the "fusion furnace" model), for an average temperature of roughly 105
K. That's a discrepancy of 15 orders of magnitude! So where did all of that heat go?
Some of it has been expelled into the heliosphere as solar wind. Yet if we compressed the plasma in the heliosphere such that we got the temperature up to 5.31 × 1020 K, it would occupy only 2.64 × 1015 km3, which is less than 0.2% of the solar volume. So essentially, the Sun has only just begun to regenerate with solar wind the cloud from which it condensed, and it still has 99.8% of its thermal energy. So again, what happened to the 15 more orders of magnitude of heat?
In the Chandler's model, the kinetic energy has all been converted to electrostatic potential. Compressive ionization separated the charges. In so doing, it also removed the heat that would have precluded condensation. Powerful electric fields remove degrees of freedom from matter, thereby reducing the temperature.13
If the pressure relaxed, and compressive ionization was no longer tenable, the charges would recombine, releasing heat in the process. So all of the net energy is conserved, while the conversion of heat to electrostatic potential enables condensed matter when the hydrostatic pressure should have precluded it.
Exotic stars get a different treatment.
section established that imploding filaments of a dusty plasma can resolve into toroidal plasmoids. This section elaborates on the behaviors of such stars.
It was mentioned that the speed of the imploding plasma could be as high as 0.86 c (with the supporting calculations in the section on the Sun's Energy Budget
). But note that this is just the speed of one half of the implosion (i.e., the rate at which each end of the filament moves toward the center). This means that the combined speed between opposing charge streams in the toroidal plasmoid will be double that — 1.72 c! At that rate, the magnetic pinch will be extremely robust, and the ohmic heating will create extreme temperatures — easily the conditions necessary for nuclear fusion.
This is interesting because one of the telltale signs of nuclear fusion in the laboratory is the release of gamma rays, and we certainly observe such radiation during the formation of certain types of stars. But in the standard model, such observations shouldn't be possible in space. Gamma rays are absorbed by the thinnest of gas clouds. We didn't know that anything at all was capable of producing gamma rays in space until we launched a satellite to detect nuclear explosions on Earth (to enforce the ban on nuclear weapons testing),14
and it started detecting gamma rays that were not terrestrial. After 10 years of research, the conclusion was that the sources could only be celestial.15
We now know that there are plenty of gamma ray sources in space, but they're only detectable from space, since the Earth's atmosphere absorbs the radiation. The significance is that there isn't anything between the Earth and the gamma ray source that is as thick as the Earth's atmosphere, or the radiation would have already been absorbed. Now if we consider what types of conditions are required for fusion, a very serious theoretical problem comes into full view — fusion does not occur in gas clouds thinner than the Earth's atmosphere — it requires extreme pressures. In the standard model, such conditions are present only in the cores of large stars, but the overlying matter will always absorb all of the gamma rays. So how can sustained fusion occur in space, when in at least one direction (i.e., facing us), there isn't anything as thick as our atmosphere containing the pressure?
The possibility not previously considered is that the matter is being compressed by the magnetic pinch effect. In other words, the toroidal plasmoid has graduated into a sort of natural tokamak (or more aptly, a stellarator).16
(See Figure 1
.) Of course, in nature there won't be any poloidal magnetic fields accelerating the plasma — all of the acceleration will have already occurred during the implosion of the linear filament, and the natural tokamak (hereafter, NT
) will have only the conservation of that original momentum. But the magnetic pinch will be functionally identical, and with the same results — matter will be compressed to densities necessary for fusion. And since the magnetic force is transparent, we'll see the gamma rays.
Is there any other evidence of fusion?
Indeed there is. The central stars in planetary nebulae are known to fuse heavy elements,17:199~207
and then eject them in bipolar jets. In the standard model, fusion occurs in the cores of large stars, but then the heavy elements should stay in the core, since they are (obviously) heavier, and thus not going to bubble up through lighter elements toward the surface. So there isn't a way for heavy elements to even get to the surface, much less get there and then get accelerated above the gravitational escape velocity, never mind speeds that can exceed 100 km/s. Only an explosion of some sort could accomplish such acceleration. And yet what we see in planetary nebulae is a steady stream of particles. So it isn't one big explosion — it's an ongoing process, just with explosive power. For example, the lobes in Figure 2
took 1200 years achieve this size,18,19
and some nebulae take as long as 20,000 years to form.20
This sounds a lot like sustained nuclear fusion. The standard model doesn't have such a near-surface energy source, but this isn't a problem for the NT
model. If nuclear fusion is occurring, and since this tokamak doesn't have any walls, ejecta will escape the system. In other words, just as there isn't any overlying matter to block gamma rays, there isn't anything to block fusion by-products, such as energetic heavy elements.
|Figure 2. M2-9 (the Butterfly Wings Nebula), is an example of bipolar outflow.
More interesting still is the fact that the ejecta are collimated into bipolar outflows. This is extremely difficult to explain in the standard model. It is well known that the bipolar outflows follow magnetic field lines.17:199~207,21
But the standard model can't explain what could create magnetic fields in this configuration, nor why the bulk of the matter would emerge from just two points on the star, instead of from all points equally.
|Figure 3. Section of a toroidal explosion, showing that 50% of the ejecta merge into "axial" jets (25% each way).
To begin to understand this, we can look at the geometry of a toroidal reactor that doesn't have any walls. (See Figure 3.) Nuclear reactions inside the torus will accelerate particles in all directions away from the annulus, but note that any particles ejected toward the center will collide with each other, and resolve into a collimated stream. This establishes a generalized model that is useful in explaining a wide variety of axial jets, including those of black holes, pulsars, and quasars.
In planetary nebulae, we have many more data from these near neighbors, and we can bring the picture into much clearer focus. In a recent study of the radio emissions from supernova remnants, it was found that almost all of the bipolar jets were aligned with their respective galactic planes, while the probability of this distribution occurring by chance is only 0.0007.22,23,24,25
This is clear evidence of a force. Gravity isn't it, so it has to be electromagnetism. In spiral galaxies, the magnetic field is parallel to the plane of rotation. So the axial jets are parallel to the galactic magnetic field. The prevailing opinion is that this field is not strong enough to have dynamical effects on the central star, so the field steers the polar jets into alignment after ejection from the star. Yet in none of the cases is there any evidence of redirection moving away from the star, meaning that all of the "steering" would have to occur very near the star, when the ejecta are at their peak speeds. This is highly unlikely.
model offers a more realistic possibility — the steering isn't getting applied to the ejecta (because the ejecta don't turn as they stream outward), and the steering isn't acting on the central star (because there is nowhere near enough force) — rather, the steering occurs earlier, acting on the filaments that collapse into the central star, which just happens to set up an axis of rotation that is parallel with the galactic field.26
One estimate for the time that it takes for a dusty plasma to implode is 1.59 × 108
That's long enough for electric fields measured in micro-volts per meter, and magnetic fields measured in nano-teslas, to influence the outcomes. If the external magnetic field can set the plane of rotation for the NT
that will form, the jets will get a specific orientation relative to that field without any additional force.
So let's work backwards, from the outcome to the pre-conditions. (See Figure 4.) If the axial jets (shown in yellow) are to be parallel to the galactic magnetic field, the axis of rotation of the central star has to be parallel, and the plane of rotation has to be perpendicular (shown as the circle in the middle of the image). This means that the filaments have to implode traveling on a plane that is perpendicular to the galactic plane. So if we take the start points of the filaments (in the upper right and lower left of the image) and move them off of that plane, those axial jets won't get ejected parallel to the galactic plane.
|Figure 4. Filaments imploding on a plane that is perpendicular to the lines of force in the galactic magnetic field.
With the start points set properly, there is also a twist that needs to be set, such that the positive and negative strands of each half get separated on that same perpendicular plane. So Figure 4
shows the strands side-by-side, but if they were stacked one on top of the other, the plane of rotation would be vertical, and thus the axial jets would shoot out horizontally, not in line with the galactic field. So for this to work, the strands have to get separated left-to-right in this image.
|Figure 5. The right-hand rule for the Lorentz force, courtesy GSU. With the thumb pointing in the direction of the moving positive charge, and with the other four fingers facing south in the external magnetic field, the Lorentz force is outward from the palm.
Since the filament isn't going to split into positive and negative strands (due to magnetic pressure between the opposite charges) until the implosion has already begun and has developed a lot of speed, the direction of the split is determined by the external magnetic field. So we're looking for an effect coming from charged particles moving perpendicular to a magnetic field, that will get the positive charges to go one way, and the negative charges the other, on a plane that is perpendicular to the field lines and to the particle motion. This is known as the Lorentz force. (See Figure 5.)
So if we are standing on the filament plane, with our feet pointing south in the galactic magnetic field, and facing in the direction of one of the imploding filaments, the positive component will get deflected to our left, while the negative component will go to our right. Coming in from the opposite direction, it's the same thing, except that the directions are reversed. Thus the positive stream coming from one direction always collides with the negative stream coming from the other direction. The Filaments
section established that nearing the collision, there are both electric and magnetic reasons for the charge streams to prefer collisions with their opposites, but the present point is that this has already been determined, and
the orientation has been set. If an NT
forms, its axis of rotation will be parallel to the external magnetic field, and thus the axial jets will be generated parallel to that field.
To complete the concept, we can wonder what put the start points of the filaments on a plane perpendicular to the galactic field in the first place, because if that isn't set properly, there will be no way to get the axial jets parallel to the galactic field. But that might be the wrong question — it might just be that any filament that implodes on a plane that isn't
perpendicular to the galactic field won't get separated into strands by the Lorentz force. If the filament implodes on a plane that is parallel to the galactic field, the Lorentz force will simply set positive and negative charges into helical paths. As such, the strands won't get separated side-to-side, and then the pre-conditions for a toroidal plasmoid will not be present. So filaments imploding perpendicular to a strong galactic field will get that side-to-side strand separation that makes them candidates for resolving into NTs
, while any other orientation will result in the formation of a main sequence star.
|Figure 6. Solenoidal magnetic field.
Now we can see what coerces the galactic magnetic field lines into the classic hourglass shape, which defines the form of the bipolar jets.
Once the NT
gets established, with relativistic angular velocities, it will generate its own magnetic field. For a ring current, the B-field is in solenoidal form. (See Figure 6
.) If we grab the near side of the ring with a right hand, the thumb will point in the direction of the positive current, and the 4 fingers will point south in the toroidal B-field. So south is down in the center, and up around the outsides. If we return to Figure 7
, we had a galactic magnetic field with south facing down, which deflected positive charges to their left, setting up the rotation, with positive charges going clockwise, as they are in Figure 6
. Thus the interior solenoidal field of the NT
is compatible with the galactic field, while the exterior is contrary.
field will then perturb the galactic field, as depicted in the following images. Figure 8
shows the straight lines of the galactic field. Figure 9
shows the lines of force around the outside of the toroid, which are similar to those of a bar magnet. Figure 10
shows that field superposed on the galactic field, producing the hourglass form. (All three figures were generated using one of Paul Falstad's EM applets
|Figure 8. Lines of force in the galactic magnetic field.
|Figure 9. Lines of force around the outside of a solenoid.
|Figure 10. Solenoid superposed on the galactic field.
Figure 11 shows the same thing as Figure 10, but in schematic form (i.e., not computed). The shortest, densest lines of the toroidal field close locally, while the longer lines are more susceptible to interception by the external field.
|Figure 11. Section through a ring current (in red) generating a magnetic field (in green) that perturbs the straight lines of an external field.
shows a blow-up of Figure 11
, along with the initial trajectories of the particles ejected from the NT
(as in Figure 3
). The ejecta will be +ions, and as such, they will tend to follow magnetic lines of force (i.e., as Birkeland currents).28
These "currents" are responsible for the radio emissions from planetary nebulae, since the helical motion of charged particles in a field-aligned current generate cyclotron radiation. The text following the image describes the expected behaviors of the ejecta traveling in each direction.
|Figure 12. Particles ejected from a "natural tokamak" (NT), and the magnetic field lines that they will tend to follow.
First, what becomes of the collimated axial jets? If it were not for the galactic field, we'd expect the jets to stay organized — indefinitely if they don't collide with anything else — bound together by their collective magnetic fields (i.e., the magnetic pinch effect). But if there is an external field, the splaying lines of force do not lose their strength, and we have to consider the effects of that splaying. Charged particles spiraling around magnetic field lines behave as bar magnets, which are accelerated in the direction of converging field lines, and thus are decelerated
in diverging lines. One way to think of this is to imagine a ring with strings passing through it — if the strings are diverging, the ring won't want to go in that direction — the force of divergence will rather send the ring sliding down the strings in the direction of convergence. So if the axial jets are encountering the deceleration of Birkeland currents in a diverging magnetic field, the highly collimated, fast moving jets will break down into high pressure bubbles that will propagate slowly away from the center thereafter. This explains the bipolar internal bubbles in Figure 2
, as well as in the Ant Nebula
, and the Eskimo Nebula
(in which we are looking along the axis of rotation, down the middle of the cylinder).
Second, we should consider what happens to particles that are ejected straight out, along the plane of rotation. These will encounter magnetic braking, as they attempt to move perpendicular to the magnetic field lines. Thus we would expect an accumulation of matter on the plane of rotation. And indeed, this is sometimes observed.29
But note that the present model doesn't have such matter as part of an "accretion" disc — rather, it's an excretion
disc. The matter that formed the star was in a filament that resolved into an NT
. The accumulation of matter on the plane of rotation didn't begin until after the NT
got lit and started ejecting heavy elements. And that matter isn't flowing in, fueling the star — it's flowing out, as fusion by-products. (Iron is a poor choice of fuels for a tokamak.) And it makes sense that the mass of the "excretion disc" is just a few percent of the mass of the bipolar lobes30
— only the matter ejected on the plane of rotation is going to accumulate — everything else escapes the star's gravity, and proceeds outward.
Lastly, we see that between the polar and equatorial directions, particles are moving diagonally to the lines of force. These particles will be deflected in the direction of those lines, and go on to form the cylinder of the nebula. And while these particles initially experience deceleration due to the splaying magnetic field, once they get to the shoulder of the cylinder, the lines of force then converge. Thus there will be an acceleration into the main body of the cylinder, which shows up as a violet ring in Figure 2. And this explains why the cylinder projects further from the source than the remnants of the axial jets — the particles flowing into the cylinder got accelerated, while the axial jets experienced only deceleration.
1. Newton, I. (1687): Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. New York: Daniel Adee ⇧
2. Lane, J. H. (1870): On the Theoretical Temperature of the Sun under the Hypothesis of a Gaseous Mass Maintaining its Volume by its Internal Heat and Depending on the Laws of Gases Known to Terrestrial Experiment. The American Journal of Science and Arts, 2 (50): 57-74 ⇧
3. Jeans, J. (1902): The Stability of a Spherical Nebula. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, 199: 1-53 ⇧
4. Eddington, A. S. (1927): Stars and Atoms. Oxford: The Clarendon Press ⇧
5. Blumenthal, G. R.; Faber, S. M.; Primack, J. R.; Rees, M. J. (1984): Formation of galaxies and large-scale structure with cold dark matter. Nature, 311: 517-525 ⇧
6. Carlqvist, P. (1988): Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation. Astrophysics and Space Science, 144 (1-2): 73-84 ⇧
7. Verschuur, G. L. (1995): Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch. Astrophysics and Space Science, 227 (1-2): 187-198 ⇧
8. Peretto, N. et al. (2012): The Pipe Nebula as seen with Herschel: Formation of filamentary structures by large-scale compression? arXiv, astro-ph.GA: 1203.3403 ⇧
9. Peratt, A. L.; Verschuur, G. L. (2000): Observation of the CIV effect in interstellar clouds: a speculation on the physical mechanism for their existence. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 28 (6): 2122-2127 ⇧
10. Prialnik, D. (2000): An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution. Cambridge University Press ⇧
11. Williams, J. P.; Blitz, L.; McKee, C. F. (1999): The Structure and Evolution of Molecular Clouds: from Clumps to Cores to the IMF. arXiv, astro-ph: 9902246 ⇧
12. Richardson, J. D. (2000): The Solar Wind: Probing the Heliosphere with Multiple Spacecraft. COSPAR Colloquium on The Outer Heliosphere: The Next Frontier, Potsdam ⇧
13. Caflisch, R. et al. (2008): Accelerated Monte Carlo Methods for Coulomb Collisions. Bulletin of the American Physical Society, 53 (14) ⇧
14. (2015): Vela. Encyclopedia Astronautica ⇧
15. Klebesadel, R. W.; Strong, I. B.; Olson, R. A. (1973): Observations of Gamma-Ray Bursts of Cosmic Origin. The Astrophysical Journal, 182: L85 ⇧
16. Rezzolla, L. et al. (2011): The missing link: Merging neutron stars naturally produce jet-like structures and can power short Gamma-Ray Bursts. arXiv, 1101.4298 ⇧
17. Kwok, S. (2000): The Origin and Evolution of Planetary Nebulae. Cambridge University Press ⇧ ⇧
18. Livio, M.; Soker, N. (2001): The "Twin Jet" Planetary Nebula M2-9. The Astrophysical Journal, 552: 685-691 ⇧
19. Schwarz, H. E.; Aspin, C.; Corradi, R. L.; Reipurth, B. (1997): M2-9: moving dust in a fast bipolar outflow. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 319: 267-273 ⇧
20. Frew, D. J.; Parker, Q. A. (2010): Planetary Nebulae: Observational Properties, Mimics and Diagnostics. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 27 (02): 129-148 ⇧
21. Sabin, L.; Zijlstra, A. A.; Greaves, J. S. (2007): Magnetic fields in planetary nebulae and post-AGB nebulae. arXiv, astro-ph: 0701054 ⇧
22. Gaensler, B. M. (1999): Morphological Studies of Extragalactic Supernova Remnants. Perspectives on Radio Astronomy: Science with Large Antenna Arrays, 271-274 ⇧
23. Bhatnagar, S. (2001): Radio Study of Galactic Supernova Remnants and the Interstellar Medium. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Pune, India ⇧
24. Henning, T.; Li, H. (2011): The alignment of molecular cloud magnetic fields with the spiral arms in M33. Nature, 479 (7374): 499-501 ⇧
25. Beck, R. (2000): Magnetic fields in normal galaxies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 358 (1767): 777-796 ⇧
26. Rees, B.; Zijlstra, A. A. (2013): Alignment of the Angular Momentum Vectors of Planetary Nebulae in the Galactic Bulge. arXiv.org > astro-ph, 1307.5711 ⇧
27. Chandler, C. (2017): Energy Budget. QDL, 4866 ⇧
28. Fälthammar, C. (2004): Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas — a brief review. Geofísica Internacional, 43 (2): 225-239 ⇧
29. Brusa, M.; Gilli, R.; Comastri, A. (2005): The Iron Line Background. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 621: L5-L8 ⇧
30. Lykou, F. et al. (2011): A disc inside the bipolar planetary nebula M2-9. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 527: A105-A116 ⇧