Guidelines FF&AD stands for "friendly for & against debate", meaning that I'm suggesting that this thread abide by some guidelines loosely sketched out in the Rules for Friendly Debating thread. Essentially, this thread is just for debating one interpretation of the data. Alternate interpretations can be referenced here, but should be further explored in their own threads, and replies (for & against) to those interpretations should be posted in those threads, not this one. All threads abiding by these guidelines should begin with "FF&AD...", so that they'll be easy to find later.
Data It's easy to see that the Universe is full of filaments, especially in stellar nurseries. Here are some papers that Lloyd located on the topic. Please post links to other papers if you know of any, especially those with the low-level data showing the physical characteristics of filaments.
Other Interpretations One interpretation, as discussed in the typical width for interstellar filaments? thread and elsewhere, is that stars are forming in these filaments due to the magnetic pinch effect. (Elaboration on that interpretation should be done on that thread.)
Related Threads But there's another interpretation, which is the subject of this thread. For book-keeping purposes, I "think" that the first time I presented this was on the ...Where does the juice come from? thread. Anyway, what I'm saying here is substantially similar, but I did new diagrams to better illustrate it, and this thread is just for this idea.
Principle Contention It's possible that the observed currents, and their related magnetic fields, are not causes, but rather effects, of the accretion. If "something" causes the accretion, the movement of the plasma toward the centroids will look like an electric current with an associated magnetic field, because the matter is ionized, and thus it constitutes moving electric charges, which is the definition of an electric current, and which will generate a magnetic field. But that doesn't mean that the current was the prime mover, nor that the magnetic field is forcing the accretion. Something else might have caused the movement.
So what is the nature of that "something" that pulls the matter together? We all know that it isn't gravity, which can account for only 1/5 to 1/20 of the force necessary. The principle contention is that the force is electrostatic, in the "like-likes-like" configuration.
In a dusty plasma, the dust grains pick up a negative charge, due to the higher mobility of the electrons. Thus more electrons impact the dust grain than +ions, and electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust grain, while the surrounding gas becomes ionized by the loss of electrons, forming what is known as a Debye sheath. The dust grain and its Debye sheath, taken together, are net neutral, and normally, we'd think that they would not interact electrically with their environments. Well, they don't interact much. But if we're looking for something that is 5 times greater than the near-infinitesimal force of gravity, it doesn't have to be much.
Fact of the matter is that there is a net force between net-neutral systems — it's called the "like-likes-like" force (as Richard Feynman called it). In a cluster of these things, the negative dust grains repel each other, while being attracted to the Debye sheaths. In-between dust grains, the Debye sheaths overlap, increasing the attraction. So while the dust grains repel each other, they are attracted to their shared +ion clouds. Now we just have to remember that the electric force obeys in the inverse square law. This means that the attraction to the shared +ion clouds is greater than the repulsion between the like-charged dust grains, because the +ion clouds are closer. This means that there is a net attraction "between likes", hence the paradoxical "like-likes-like" force. And since the attraction is between every dust grain and each of its neighbors, this isn't going to just pull one dust grain toward one other dust grain. Rather, it's a net body force on the entire dusty plasma, pulling it all together.
But also notice that there is a lot of repulsion in that configuration, between like charged dust grains, and like charged +ion clouds. Now look what happens if the spherical dusty plasma is stretched into a filament. There is no repulsion anywhere in this configuration! All of the electric lines of force close on the nearest neighbor, which is oppositely charged. So it's all attraction and no repulsion.
I conclude from this that the net attractive force in this configuration is much greater, and thus the chances of accretion are much greater. So then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically. I'm thinking that a nearby supernova doesn't "compress" a dusty plasma into a star, but rather, stirs things up a bit, and in the stirring, filaments get stretched into existence. Once formed, they'll snap together. In other words, it would be like grabbing a balloon and stretching it into a filament. Eventually, the balloon bursts, and then the rubber is pulled violently toward the poor little fingers that stretched it into a filament.
I'm currently working out the implications of this. In 3D, stretching a spherical dusty plasma into a filament won't instantaneously create a single-file filament. Rather, the first form of accretion is toward the axis of the filament, as it stretches thinner & thinner. I'm thinking that this "thinning filament accretion" is where stars get their first chance of forming. With radial inflow toward the axis along the filament, conflicting magnetic fields will result in a spiraling inflow, and the fields will resolve into an axial field, parallel to the axis of the filament. This agrees with the data, and suggests that the "currents" are not Birkeland currents spinning around an external magnetic field, but rather, they are collapsing charged particles that form their own magnetic field. This explains how zig-zag filaments could have zig-zag axial magnetic fields. A Birkeland current running through an external magnetic field would have all of the filaments aligned to the external magnetic field — they wouldn't zig-zag.
Also, if stars are forming simply by the accretion of a dusty plasma that got stretched, stars will form like beads on a string, and the string itself will never snap together end-to-end. The beads-on-a-string configuration is common, and this appears to be a plausible explanation.
Rebuttals If you can think of a reason why these mechanisms wouldn't produce the proposed effects, please post a reply here. If have a different interpretation of the same data, start a new thread, and please cross-link it here, but discuss it in depth there.
2 of 3 of Lloyd's referenced papers refer to a magnetic pinch effect, same as the EU position. The 3d paper discusses turbulence and mechanical processes and magnetism (but without electricity... Bad science). It seems to me that like likes like would result in clumping, like the clouds in our sky, rather than filamentary structures.
I don't really know what that diagram represents. Is it a representation of your interpretation? Or is it from some paper? Is it a simulator? It's not clear to me. I don't disagree with like likes like, just that it seems a stretch of the imagination, whereas magnetic pinching is a direct cause and effect.
like-likes-like is not a physical process, it explains nothing. You would need to look for a push force and your model does not represent it.
Here is where your thought process breaks down >
So then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically. I'm thinking that a nearby supernova doesn't "compress" a dusty plasma into a star, but rather, stirs things up a bit, and in the stirring, filaments get stretched into existence
"By stirring, filaments get stretched into existence" is a non-starter, supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything. And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.
The compression is magnetic, the cause for the magnetic compression is current, so the origin of the current is? If you can somehow show that dusty plasma self assembles to form currents that would be neat. Please be aware that currently all research on dusty plasma invoke a current first not the other way around.
Now look what happens if the spherical dusty plasma is stretched into a filament. There is no repulsion anywhere in this configuration! All of the electric lines of force close on the nearest neighbor, which is oppositely charged. So it's all attraction and no repulsion.
justcurious wrote: I don't really know what that diagram represents. Is it a representation of your interpretation? Or is it from some paper? Is it a simulator? It's not clear to me.
It shows the electric field lines between opposite point charges, as calculated by a simulator. Here's a link to the code if you'd like to review it. The workhorse is the doSolve() function, which solves Poisson's equation in nested grids.
justcurious wrote: I don't disagree with like likes like, just that it seems a stretch of the imagination, whereas magnetic pinching is a direct cause and effect.
The "like-likes-like" principle has been proven in the laboratory. I haven't run the numbers to find the actual strengths of the net forces in plasma. So many calcs; so little time! But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?
D_Archer wrote: like-likes-like is not a physical process, it explains nothing.
What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.
D_Archer wrote: You would need to look for a push force and your model does not represent it.
Why wouldn't a "pull" do the job?
D_Archer wrote: Supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything.
How did you arrive at this?
D_Archer wrote: And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.
And how did you arrive at that one?
D_Archer wrote: The compression is magnetic...
The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.
D_Archer wrote: Please be aware that currently all research on dusty plasma invoke a current first not the other way around.
Argumentum ad populum.
Sparky wrote: What experimental data would falsify [the electrostatic filaments hypothesis]?
The next step would be to run the numbers, on the "like-likes-like" force between Debye cells in an arbitrary 3D arrangement, and then the numbers for the filamentary configuration.
justcurious wrote: I don't really know what that diagram represents. Is it a representation of your interpretation? Or is it from some paper? Is it a simulator? It's not clear to me.
It shows the electric field lines between opposite point charges, as calculated by a simulator. Here's a link to the code if you'd like to review it. The workhorse is the doSolve() function, which solves Poisson's equation in nested grids.
justcurious wrote: I don't disagree with like likes like, just that it seems a stretch of the imagination, whereas magnetic pinching is a direct cause and effect.
The "like-likes-like" principle has been proven in the laboratory. I haven't run the numbers to find the actual strengths of the net forces in plasma. So many calcs; so little time! But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?
Like-likes-like is just an observation it is not a force nor a process, it is an understanding of nothing physical.
D_Archer wrote: like-likes-like is not a physical process, it explains nothing.
What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.
an observation generates a body force...
D_Archer wrote: You would need to look for a push force and your model does not represent it.
Why wouldn't a "pull" do the job?
You placed "pull" in quotation, that would answer your question, and i only mean that you used like-likes-like in your model as a physical force, which it is not, so to complete the model you would need a push force.
D_Archer wrote: Supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything.
How did you arrive at this?
Commons sense. I think it would be well and proper to not use mainstream 'supernova-did-it' explanations to build models.
D_Archer wrote: And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.
And how did you arrive at that one?
I did not arrive, you did, you used something that stirs to explain compression.
D_Archer wrote: The compression is magnetic...
The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.
Your understanding of what is physically possible does not really impress. You start off okay with: "magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter" indeed this is so and than you try to spin it and say that it can not.. why?
D_Archer wrote: Please be aware that currently all research on dusty plasma invoke a current first not the other way around.
Argumentum ad populum.
I did not argue from a popular belief, it is not a belief that in dusty plasma research they set up a current and than observe/measure interaction; that is what they actually physically do, there has not been any observation ever that dusty plasma sets up its own fields/current.
Sparky wrote: What experimental data would falsify [the electrostatic filaments hypothesis]?
The next step would be to run the numbers, on the "like-likes-like" force between Debye cells in an arbitrary 3D arrangement, and then the numbers for the filamentary configuration.
CharlesChandler wrote: The "like-likes-like" principle has been proven in the laboratory. I haven't run the numbers to find the actual strengths of the net forces in plasma. So many calcs; so little time! But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?
D_Archer wrote: Like-likes-like is just an observation it is not a force nor a process, it is an understanding of nothing physical.
If the electric force is physical, and if it obeys the inverse square law, the "like-likes-like" principle is physical. Note that this is the same force that binds atoms together into molecules, which otherwise would be inexplicable, since neutral atoms should have no affinity for each other. Yet the mutual attraction of positive nuclei to shared electrons generates a powerful binding force. If that's not physical, what is?
CharlesChandler wrote: What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.
D_Archer wrote: an observation generates a body force...
It's ironic that the entire EU method involves just three steps: 1) observe similarities between astronomical phenomena and plasma discharges, 2) conclude without further analysis that they must the same thing, and 3) argue with anyone who disagrees. Yet the physical forces are provably quite different, meaning that they are not the same thing at all, and the superficial similarity is misleading. But in my more detailed analysis of the actual physical forces, I'm accused of promoting observations to physical forces.
D_Archer wrote: Supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything.
CharlesChandler wrote: How did you arrive at this?
D_Archer wrote: Common sense.
Denying that supernovae stir neighboring plasmas isn't common sense. A supernova expels matter. When that matter collides with a nearby dusty plasma, any inconsistencies in the densities of the dusty plasma and the supernova ejecta will result in turbulence. This always happens in collisions, and I can cite plenty of common examples.
D_Archer wrote: I think it would be well and proper to not use mainstream 'supernova-did-it' explanations to build models.
The correlation between supernovae and dusty plasma collapse is incontrovertible. How this happens is where I diverge from the mainstream (and from the EU).
D_Archer wrote: And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.
CharlesChandler wrote: And how did you arrive at that one?
D_Archer wrote: I did not arrive, you did, you used something that stirs to explain compression.
No, I acknowledge the collision between supernova ejecta and the neighboring dusty plasma, which causes turbulence (which you do not acknowledge). Then, I'm saying that the turbulence stretches the plasma into filaments, and then the electrostatic forces cause the collapse.
D_Archer wrote: The compression is magnetic...
CharlesChandler wrote: The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.
D_Archer wrote: Your understanding of what is physically possible does not really impress. You start off okay with: "magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter" indeed this is so and than you try to spin it and say that it can not... why?
The magnetic force can compress matter, but not all of the way into a condensed state. Since the Sun's density is greater than that of liquid hydrogen, it's appropriate to call it condensed matter. And since the Sun's properties are similar to other stars, the same goes for them too. So the question of star formation is necessarily a matter of finding the forces that can get matter that compressed. And since the electric force is very definitely a factor at close range, and is more powerful than the magnetic force, it needs to be taken into account. When it is, z-pinches are eliminated as possible condensing agents.
But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?
D_Archer wrote:What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.
