Spiral proto planet disk

[DarkStar7]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019170256.

Planets produce spiral arms. What about galaxies? It is obvious to me now that the magnetic force plays a much more important role in the Universe than is being given credit for. From very deep controversial thinking in other threads I came round to a very simple conclusion that magnetism is a force poorly understood and that has been ignored by physicists as an important force in the wider cosmos. There is no hypothetical dark energy, dark matter, the force of magnetism is all that is needed. Here it is shaping the proto planetary nebular. I'll predict that the proto planetary nebula spins faster on the edge of the disk than can be explained by Physicists here using gravity alone.Introducing magnetism that in particle physics could be explained as a positronic field of antimatter in superposition ie has negative combined mass will hopefully one day be shown to be the elusive dark energy.

Of course at this scale the dust and gas within the proto planetary disk will eventually be forced to clump at certain points along the arms and collapse into planets. At the galactic scales the more massive stars would form.No need for a density wave lol, Notice further,the fractal nature of universe. The spiral reappears at many scales like the Mandlebrott set.

[cloudnine]

I have no idea what you're talking about :-)

Spirals in protoplanetary discs can easily be recreated through the modelling of gravitational interactions in a disc of gas and dust. I've not seen the other threads discussing magnetic fields but the interaction between the spinning magnetic field of the young protostar and the disc is believed to be limited to a fraction of an AU from the star (according to models that include magnetic fields) where there is a high degree of ionisation of the disc material through UV and X-ray irradiation from the star. Hence the spiral structures observed on a much larger scale don't need magnetic fields at all.

I do find magnetic fields interesting. This invisible force that is tangible when holding a ball bearing near a magnet. How is the field transmitted? Is the magnetism symptomatic of some underlying and as yet unknown feature of the fabric of space/time? Gravity can be thought of as the bending of space/time, but magnetism? Is there a magnetic version of bendy space/time that is only detected by certain metals and ionised particles? Bizarre!

Martin

[DarkStar7]

If the proto planetary disk was simply modelled by gravity it would be impossible to produce a spiral shape. The spiral structure would wrap up after a few rotations. Only if a negative mass like dark matter would maintain spiral structure. But what is dark energy.

The solar magnetic field is stated to be carried out by the solar wind as far as the heliopause, thats a bit further than a few AU.

Light is made of an alternating field of electric and magnetic fields and is capable of transversing the entire observable universe.

In particle physics they describe light as a travelling as photons. However photons only exist when observed. A photon is said to be in superposition of all possible states until observed and is described using Schrodingers wave of potentials. If elections and positrons meet they produce pure energy.. Light. If electrons and positrons are in superposition they can not annihilate. Since light can be described as containing the property of an electric field, then it stands to reason that the magnetic field is a description of positrons as a field. A positronic field would have an overall negative mass and behave as dark energy. A positronic field would have opposite relativistic effects.Magnetic fields are the dark energy.

[DarkStar7]

Cloudnine if you bend spacetime in 4D so the fabric is bowl shaped then it is bent towards lower scales. If space time is bent towards lower scales conservation of momentum will cause it's angular momentum to increase, the bowl shape is twisted more towards the centre where it is more curved, if we rotate this fabric through 90degrees we see it twisting in 5D like a vortex. The vortex turned on its side looks very much like the field theory of light with alternating electric and magnetic fields, the more it is twisted towards the centre of the 5D vortex, like the tip of a tornado the more the space time is twisted up and the fields look very much like light with magnetic and electric fields continually increasing towards and higher and higher frequencies and therefore higher energies.

[cloudnine]

I don't know where to start, so I choose not to.

Whatever you're on, it can't be good for you in the long term Good luck with your theories.

[DarkStar7]

So your satisfied with the explanation that two planets produced the spiral are structures in SAO 206462. Is it accurate to run a computer simulation backwards and place planets where you have to in order to satisfy observation. These arms would not last long. Maybe spiral galaxies have two huge stars either side to produce the elegant spiral arms of galaxies that we see lol. To me spiral arms are much more delicate in nature and require better understanding.

Is it not plausible then that 'dark matter' is maintaining the structure of these spirals arms?

I suppose all we have is wait for those planets to turn up!

[DarkStar7]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/

I don't want to die ignorant

[steelfixer]

Forgive the possabley stupid question but is there no such thing as centrifugal force in space.

Don't the arms sprial out from the center in the same direction as the planet is rotating.

Therefore slowing down and arching into a spiral as the gravitational force becomes less.

Graham

[DarkStar7]

Forgive the possabley stupid question but is there no such thing as centrifugal force in space.

Don't the arms sprial out from the center in the same direction as the planet is rotating.

Therefore slowing down and arching into a spiral as the gravitational force becomes less.

Graham

Good suggestion, but why spiral arms instead of a flatterned disk or ring.

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment - NASA Science

The probe Gravity B has proved that the gravitational field around the Earth is a vortex. So why deny it? Einstein was right, frame dragging is real and is shaped as a vortex. It has been suggested that Electromagnetism can also be described as twisted space-time in field theory.

GP-B — Spacetime & Spin

Yes, I am a nobody without letters after my name, but that does not preventing me from using established research and thinking beyond what is accepted. Amazingly with all the current research into particle physics with all the boffins measuring the properties of particles.. still nobody knows what causes the force of charge or magnetism... do any of you? Gravitation is understood by bending space in to the forth dimension. There is no reason to believe you can't twist it into a 5th dimension.

[steelfixer]

I would suggest the spiral arms are a visible wave crest.

You get the same effect when you stir a cup of tea or a tin of paint.

Once you stop stirring it has a flat surface but while it still has momentum you still see a spiral in it.

[DarkStar7]

What is doing the stirring?... I know how about a magnetic field. Through thought experiments I can show that a magnetic field is equivalent to a positronic field in superposition connected to it's particle partner the electron giving rise to the force of magnetism. Since the positrons are in superposition they remain in all states everywhere.. all possibilities even through the vacuum off space. All positrons in superposition are connected via entanglement. A positronic field has a combined negative mass and therefore behaves as dark energy. Magnetic fields are dark energy, positrons are forced out of superposition in van Allen belts. Where's my Nobel prize! lol

[steelfixer]

In my simplistic world the rotation of the planet with its associated gravity field will be doing the stirring.

As the arms get further away from the planets influence they slow down and become a flat field or maybe we are looking into a vortex.

The outer edges of the spiral arms being closer to us than the center.

Before some one asks how come some of these things we see edge on are 'flat' I would say that if the 4th dimension idea of being at 90 degrees to our 3 degree view is correct then you would only be able to see the outer edge as the center and side walls of the vortex would be out of view.

Mind you another idea has just crossed my simplistic thought process.

If the center point of a spiral were a black hole and in fact everything was traveling inward not expanding outward this will give the same effect would it not.

I too do not have letters after my name but if I did they would be

Theroretical Hinderence In Cosmic Knowlage.

[DarkStar7]

What about the Spiral galaxies... Gravity is not sufficient to produce the spiral arms. The rotation curve of a galaxy is flat from centre to edge. Do we conjure up a new theoretical force that is totally unknown or do investigate a force we are currently aware of namely magnetism?

Magnetism is a force poorly understood by the experts.

Answer me these questions:

1. Are electric fields, in field theory the electron in a superposition state in particle theory?

2. As such isn't the electron in all possible states everywhere even across the universe?

3. Is light in field theory described as a wave of alternating electric and magnetic fields?

4.In particle theory can light also can be in superposition state?

5.Can a positron exist in a superposition state?

6. High energy photons produce equal numbers of particles and antiparticles pairs.The positron is a symmetry partner of the electron, so where do all the positrons go?

7.Can an electron and positron coexist in a superposition state?is that state not light?

8.Does magnetism operate in a vacuum?

9. If light contains a magnetic field component, and light propagates through space,why cant magnetism as a field have a long range effect in space?

10. Why can't magnetism be the elusive dark energy?

(Note positrons in superposition universally would an overall combined negative mass ie would be a repulsive force towards ordinary mass)

Perhaps there is so much investment in to particle physics that the experts have got short sight with regards to field theory.Field theory has been left out in the cold, Magnetism is a real force and is from field theory. Surely magnetism in field theory, is positrons in superposition in particle theory? It seems so obvious to me. If I am wrong where do my arguments fail?

[steelfixer]

I can only answer question 8 with a yes.

As for the rest it is way behond me.

[DarkStar7]

Sorry Steelfixer,

Because I have been deep thinking for over 35 years about the universe I get carried away with things. Am I clever or a looney... I wish I knew

[steelfixer]

In that case as I have just started contemplating the universe ask me again in about 35 years. lol

In the meantime keep up the deep thinking it is the only way to get to the answers and keep posting your thoughts, that way the rest of us can get there quicker.

[JulianO]

What about the Spiral galaxies... Gravity is not sufficient to produce the spiral arms.

It is in the density wave theory.

The rotation curve of a galaxy is flat from centre to edge. Do we conjure up a new theoretical force that is totally unknown or do investigate a force we are currently aware of namely magnetism?

No - we use gravity and propose this fixes the rotation curve by having a lot of dark matter in a very large halo. We also find this missing mass through lots of other experiments too, so we don't need magnetism.

Magnetism is a force poorly understood by the experts.

I'm not sure that's true.

Answer me these questions:

I doubt I can, but I can comment on them

1. Are electric fields, in field theory the electron in a superposition state in particle theory?

I don't really understand the question - or quite what you mean by superpostion. It doesn't seem to be the same thing I (vaguely) understand from QM.

2. As such isn't the electron in all possible states everywhere even across the universe?

I've heard it said so. I couldn't say if its true.

3. Is light in field theory described as a wave of alternating electric and magnetic fields?

Yes

4.In particle theory can light also can be in superposition state?

I think the photons can, I think treating light as a whole is different.

5.Can a positron exist in a superposition state?

Yes

6. High energy photons produce equal numbers of particles and antiparticles pairs.The positron is a symmetry partner of the electron, so where do all the positrons go?

High energy photons can make all sorts of things, including not much.

Where do all the electrons go too?

So you make an electron and a positron. The positron quickly bumps into an electron and gets anihilated, producing a new photon probably. The electron meanwhile effectively replaces the consumed electron. Where is the issue?

7.Can an electron and positron coexist in a superposition state?is that state not light?

I don't think they can - not with my definition of a superposition.

8.Does magnetism operate in a vacuum?

Yes

9. If light contains a magnetic field component, and light propagates through space,why cant magnetism as a field have a long range effect in space?

It does, much in the same way as electric fields do. Coronal loops, aurora all sorts of things depend on long range magnetism.

10. Why can't magnetism be the elusive dark energy?

(Note positrons in superposition universally would an overall combined negative mass ie would be a repulsive force towards ordinary mass)

Magnetism like electricity is attractive and replusive, so on average they tend to cancel themselves out - unlike gravity which is only attractive.

Perhaps there is so much investment in to particle physics that the experts have got short sight with regards to field theory.Field theory has been left out in the cold, Magnetism is a real force and is from field theory. Surely magnetism in field theory, is positrons in superposition in particle theory? It seems so obvious to me. If I am wrong where do my arguments fail?

Well I think you fail by not really defining what your terms are. There is a huge amount of equations and so on describing electricity and magnetism backed up by experimentation. So your speculations are interesting but really they appear to me (a non expert in the area) to be at the same level as me saying "I think unicorns are blue based on a superposition of sphynxes". You might say "fine - but what evidence do you present for any of this, apart from it sounds good to you."

[DarkStar7]

Juliano, it is very easy to quote from a text book without even thinking. You talk as though everything in this field is known as a fact. You talk like conditioned religious radical whose takes great offence by questioning the favoured view of the subject. It is very easy to quote other experts unproven hypothesis as fact when they are the best they can come up with at the time.

Density wave theory is hypothesised to be related to gravity, but does not necessarily have to be caused by gravity alone. Dark energy and matter have been used to balance the discrepancies in observation.but dark stuff like are just terms used by the experts for something we do not fully understand yet.One possibility is magnetism is dark energy is magnetism.

I don't understand why you can't understand. Perhaps you don't want to. Is is blasphemous to question the establishment?

Juliano said...

High energy photons can make all sorts of things, including not much.

Where do all the electrons go too?

So you make an electron and a positron. The positron quickly bumps into an electron and gets anihilated, producing a new photon probably. The electron meanwhile effectively replaces the consumed electron. Where is the issue?

Think man, the universe has to be in equilibrium. There has to be equal particle and antiparticle pairs. Please do not try to rubbish my posts with off the cuff remarks not thoroughly thought through, especially on a subject you admit to poorly understanding. If you don't understand please don't reply with nonsense.

If you ever bother to learn superposition then electrons and positrons are spread out over the entire universe as a wave of potentials in all possible states at the same time A little bit tricky to annihilate. Elections and only collapse out of superposition when disturbed by other matter particles.

Please explain your idea of superposition then.

Juliano said,

Magnetism like electricity is attractive and replusive, so on average they tend to cancel themselves out - unlike gravity which is only attractive.

Not if the lines of force are in the same direction. There is no reason to believe that there our galaxy does not have a magnetic field pointing in a particular direction.

Juliano said...

Well I think you fail by not really defining what your terms are. There is a huge amount of equations and so on describing electricity and magnetism backed up by experimentation. So your speculations are interesting but really they appear to me (a non expert in the area) to be at the same level as me saying "I think unicorns are blue based on a superposition of sphynxes". You might say "fine - but what evidence do you present for any of this, apart from it sounds good to you.

Darkstar...

You can have all the mathematics and formula and experimentation in the world if you like with out understanding What is charge? what is magnetism?

For example;

Newton, discovered the force of gravity and could predict its effects, but he did not understand what gravity actually was. We had to wait for Albert Einstein to do that.

I don't fail in my arguments at all.Thinking is where ideas first come from. So long as they agree to observation then they show promise. All my hypotheses do not, I can see contradict observation. You know the experts used to write books describing that the world was flat, and like you there was a lot of people like you agreed with them.. Who wouldn't look at what was staring them in the face.The truth comes out eventually, and perhaps sooner than you think.

I'm not here to try and change your mind. It's just a shame you can't put any better counter arguments to my posts.

Juliano, do you accept all established models completely? Don't you have your own view?Don't you ever question anything? Don't you want to know the truth about nature?

[JulianO]

Juliano, it is very easy to quote from a text book without even thinking. You talk as though everything in this field is known as a fact. You talk as though this field is a religion which can not be questioned against. It is very easy to quote other experts unproven hypothesis as fact when they are the best they can come up with. Some of cosmology is presumed guesswork mate. Plenty of room for debate.

I don't understand why you can't understand. Perhaps you don't want to. Is is blasphemous to question the establishment?

The thing about text books is they generally lay out their lines of evidence, what supports the ideas, how it is built on other theories, how experimental investigation underpins it. Of course it can be questioned, and there have been many text books that are wrong, and they should be questioned. However its only reasonable to propose an alternative if its supported on some reasoning and experimental proof.

Its not blasphemous to question the establishment, but it takes a little more than tossing around a few words to overturn it. Being able to test them with experiment is the gold standard, having a consistent mathematical framework supporting it helps.

Think man, the universe has to be in equilibrium. There has to be equal particle and antiparticle pairs. Please do not try to rubbish my posts with off the cuff remarks not thoroughly thought through, especially on a subject you admit to poorly understanding.

We live in a universe dominated by matter. There is some questions about how that came about, which we can discuss, but not very much on how its maintained. Pair production doesn't violate any of the known rules. We make equal and opposite particles, and they cancel each other out again.

You can have all the mathematics and formula and experimentation in the world if you like with out understanding

You certainly can. It does help support the argument though.

What is charge? what is magnetism?

For example;

Newton, discovered the force of gravity and could predict its effects, but he did not understand what gravity actually was. We had to wait for Albert Einstein to do that.

However his laws could be empirically tested, and were underpinned by rigorous mathematics. His theory of gravity was plenty good enough to get us to the moon, which is a fair test that they were mostly right.

I don't fail in my arguments at all.Thinking is where ideas first come from. So long as they agree to observation then they show promise. All my hypotheses do not, I can see contradict observation.

Thinking is indeed important, but it needs following up. Its not enough just to think, although its a good start. I might think there are invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden. This doesn't go against observation, as you can't see them anyway.

However without my theory of fairies making some predictable testable effect, its a pretty useless theory.

You know the experts used to write books describing that the world was flat, and like you there was a lot of people like you agreed with them.. Who wouldn't look at what was staring them in the face.The truth comes out eventually, and perhaps sooner than you think.

There were - but not very many - most experts back into Greek times new the world was spherical.

I look forward to the truth coming out, and it may indeed be along the lines you say.

I'm not here to try and change your mind. It's just a shame you can't put any better counter arguments to my posts. It feels like being amongst children.

Welcome to the playground!

[DarkStar7]

Juliano,

You start from a premise that what I post is wrong. That is not very scientific is it?

A hypotheses starts from thinking. If the hypotheses agrees with observation then it may lead to a theory. Mathematics is the language of nature and is used to test the theory. Usually a good theory will complement any previous theory and add something extra to it.

You ask for evidence but I am describing for the most phenomena that has been already tested. I have not come up with any outlandish theory that does agree with observation. Infact if anything I am trying to dispell the idea of dark energy in favour of an already understood force.. magnetism.

1988MNRAS.233..115N Page 115

[Space Bat]

Good posts DS7

Not everything is as black and white as textbook explanations of how things work - some of it is correct but some of it is way off.

Energy doesn't have to exist in the same time as it was created by the way

[JulianO]

You start from a premise that what I post is wrong. That is not very scientific is it?

I don't at all - I come from the premise that you make some unsupported assertions. Such as that magnetism is a replacement for Dark Energy and/or Dark Matter (I'm not too sure which from the previous post).

OK - it may be you are onto something. Or it may be you are way off the money. How can we tell?

[DarkStar7]

Cheers, Space Bat

[DarkStar7]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111116132119.htm

Interesting