Durham astronomers’ doubts about the “Dark Side”

(16 June 2010)

New research by astronomers at Durham University suggests conventional wisdom about the content of the Universe may be wrong.

Graduate student Utane Sawangwit and Professor Tom Shanks, in Durham's Department of Physics, looked at observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite to study the remnant heat from the Big Bang.

The two scientists found evidence that the errors in its data may be much larger than previously thought, which in turn makes the standard model of the Universe open to question.

They published their results in a letter to the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

Launched in 2001, WMAP measures differences in Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, the residual heat of the Big Bang that fills the Universe and appears over the whole of the sky.

The angular size of the ripples in the CMB is thought to be connected to the composition of the Universe. The observations of WMAP showed that the ripples were about twice the size of the full Moon, or around a degree across.

With these results, scientists concluded that the cosmos was made up of four per cent 'normal' matter, 22 per cent 'dark' or invisible matter and 74 per cent 'dark energy'. Debate about the exact nature of the 'dark side' of the Universe - the dark matter and dark energy - continues to this day.

Sawangwit and Shanks used astronomical objects that appear as unresolved points in radio telescopes to test the way the WMAP telescope smoothes out its maps. They found that the smoothing is much larger than previously believed, suggesting that its measurement of the size of the CMBR ripples is not as accurate as was thought.

If true this could mean that the ripples are significantly smaller, which could imply that dark matter and dark energy are not present after all.

Professor Shanks said: "CMB observations are a powerful tool for cosmology and it is vital to check for systematic effects.

"If our results prove correct then it will become less likely that dark energy and exotic dark matter particles dominate the Universe. So the evidence that the Universe has a 'Dark Side' will weaken."

In addition, Durham astronomers recently collaborated in an international team whose research suggested that the structure of the CMB may not provide the robust independent check on the presence of dark energy that it was thought to.

Utane Sawangwit said: "If our result is repeated in new surveys of galaxies in the Southern Hemisphere then this could mean real problems for the existence of dark energy."

If the Universe really has no 'dark side', it will come as a relief to some theoretical physicists. Having a model dependent on as yet undetected exotic particles that make up dark matter and the completely mysterious dark energy leaves many scientists feeling uncomfortable.

It also throws up problems for the birth of stars in galaxies, with as much 'feedback' energy needed to prevent their creation as gravity provides to help them form.

Professor Shanks added: "Odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive, but more tests are needed.

"The European PLANCK satellite, currently out there collecting more CMB data will provide vital new information and help us answer these fundamental questions about the nature of the Universe we live in."

Comets

There is another possibility that remains unexamined. It takes account of the obvious electrical nature of comets, which is the only model to successfully predict what would be found by the Deep Impact experiment.

The flaw in the conventional approach is that only gas-phase chemical reactions and reactions induced by solar radiation (photolysis) are considered. The far more energetic molecular and atomic reactions due to plasma discharge sputtering of an electrically charged comet nucleus are not even contemplated [see below]. Yet this model solves many comet mysteries that are seldom mentioned.

The hydroxyl radical, OH, is the most abundant cometary radical. It is detected in the coma at some distance from the comet nucleus, where it is assumed that water (H₂O) is broken down by solar UV radiation to form OH, H and O. It is chiefly the presence of this radical that leads to estimates of the amount of water ice sublimating from the comet nucleus. The comas of O and OH are far less extensive than the H coma but have comparable density.

The negatively charged oxygen atom, or negative oxygen ion, has been detected close to cometary nuclei. And the spectrum of neutral oxygen (O) shows a "forbidden line" indicative of the presence of an "intense" electric field. The discovery at comet Halley of negative ions puzzled investigators because they are easily destroyed by solar radiation. They wrote, "an efficient production mechanism, so far unidentified, is required to account for the observed densities." And the intense electric field near the comet nucleus is inexplicable if it is merely an inert body ploughing through the solar wind.

Let's see how the electrical model of comets explains these mysteries. The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind. Cathode sputtering of the comet nucleus will strip atoms and molecules directly from solid rock and charge them negatively. So the presence of negative oxygen and other ions close to the comet nucleus is to be expected. Negative oxygen ions will be accelerated away from the comet in the cathode jets and combine with protons from the solar wind to form the observed OH radical at some distance from the nucleus.

The important point is that the OH does not need to come from water ice on, or in, the comet. Of course, some water is likely to be present on a comet or asteroid. It depends upon their parent body. And since there are many moons in the outer solar system and the rings of Saturn with copious water ice, we may expect some smaller bodies like comets and asteroids to have some too. But what is obvious from the closeup images of comet nuclei is that they look like dark, burnt rocks. They do not look icy. Their appearance fits the electrical model and not the poorly consolidated dirty ice model.

Electric Sun

Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.” The thought that solar scientists have it completely backwards has not troubled anyone’s imagination. The little fusion power that has been generated on Earth has required phenomenal electric power input, “just like the Sun!” The Sun and all stars consume electrical energy to produce their heat and light and cause some thermonuclear fusion in their atmospheres. The heavy elements formed there are seen in stellar spectra. It explains why the expected solar neutrino count is low and anti-correlated with sunspot numbers. It explains why many stars are considered “chemically peculiar.” Get the physics right first and the mathematics will follow.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac#top

A Mystery Solved

A Mystery Solved - Welcome to the Electric Universe!

"We simply do not have a truly unified view of the world, one that paints an unambiguous picture of some overall scheme. ...one invariably confronts a deep fissure that can be overcome only with revolutionary new ideas." Etienne Klein & Marc Lachièze-Rey, THE QUEST FOR UNITY - The Adventure of Physics.

NASA has confirmed a “deep fissure” in our understanding of the universe. The answer, though revolutionary, is simple. But it implies that the real nature of the universe is nothing like the fanciful stories we are being told. So who will have the courage to listen? Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent for The Sunday Telegraph filed this report:

Mysterious force holds back NASA probe in deep space
A SPACE probe launched 30 years ago has come under the influence of a force that has baffled scientists and could rewrite the laws of physics.

Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.” “If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation,” said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.

Pioneer 10 was launched by NASA on March 2 1972, and with Pioneer 11, its twin, revolutionised astronomy with detailed images of Jupiter and Saturn. In June 1983, Pioneer 10 passed Pluto, the most distant planet in our solar system. Both probes are now travelling at 27,000mph towards stars that they will encounter several million years from now. Scientists are continuing to monitor signals from Pioneer 10, which is more than seven billion miles from Earth.

Research to be published shortly in The Physical Review, a leading physics journal, will show that the speed of the two probes is being changed by about 6 mph per century - a barely-perceptible effect about 10 billion times weaker than gravity. Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly with distance.

The bizarre behaviour has also eliminated the possibility that the two probes are being affected by the gravitational pull of unknown planets beyond the solar system. Assertions by some scientists that the force is due to a quirk in the Pioneer probes have also been discounted by the discovery that the effect seems to be affecting Galileo and Ulysses, two other space probes still in the solar system. Data from these two probes suggests the force is of the same strength as that found for the Pioneers.
Dr Duncan Steel, a space scientist at Salford University, says even such a weak force could have huge effects on a cosmic scale. "It might alter the number of comets that come towards us over millions of years, which would have consequences for life on Earth. It also raises the question of whether we know enough about the law of gravity."

Until 1988, Pioneer 10 was the most remote object made by man - a distinction now held by Voyager 1.

© Text copyright of Telegraph Group Limited 2002.
>> Go to original article.

---

Solution of the mystery:
Common sense suggests that it is unlikely that the laws of physics will need to be rewritten, simply that we should understand better those we have. We need not trouble ourselves with arguments about the nature of gravity in this instance because the mystery can be solved if the electrical nature of the universe is acknowledged. The mystery only arises because astrophysics is taught incorrectly. Students are taught that any separation of charge in space is quickly neutralized as electrons rush to neutralize the charge imbalance. As a result, electricity in space is almost never mentioned, except as a transient effect. So no astrophysicist would think to ask the question of whether there is a steady interplanetary electric field. They have not "examined every mechanism and theory."

It is always assumed that there is a source of electrons to meet any deficiency and that they can be supplied faster than the charging process. However, space is a far better vacuum than any we can achieve on Earth, so the assumption that there are sufficient electrons available may not be true. And where there are sufficient electrons, in their rush to neutralize the electric field they may undergo the magnetic “Z pinch” effect that cuts off the current at some maximum value before recovering and beginning the cycle once more. In fact, observations of energetic activity in space on all scales show this kind of “bursty” behavior. The most recent example came from Jupiter and was reported by Scientific American on March 4 as “a mysterious X-ray ‘hot spot’ that flares up like a beacon every 45 minutes.” We produce X-rays every day in industry and medicine by using electrical discharges. Why would Nature do it any other way?

In our electric universe the forces between charged objects is of the same form as Newton's equation, with charge replacing mass. The BIG difference is that the electrical force is about 10^39 times stronger than gravity. So if there is an electric field in space, it will have a measurable effect on a charged spacecraft.

Ralph Juergens, 1949.

An electric field in space can give rise to electric discharge phenomena like those seen in a low-pressure gas. The most familiar example is the neon tube, and for some lucky people–the wonderful natural spectacle of an aurora. Extensive research was done on gas discharges early in the 20th century but its application to solar physics, pioneered briefly in the 1970’s by an engineer from Flagstaff, Arizona, Ralph Juergens, was perforce published in an obscure journal and permitted to sink without trace.

This is a diagram showing a discharge tube with all of the important features annotated above the tube. [D.S. = dark space]. Note that in the Sun’s huge environment, the only bright regions are very close to the Sun because the energy density is too low to excite a glow. Below the tube are graphs showing the variation of important variables along the tube length. The simple discharge tube demonstrates some of the complexity of electric discharges in near vacuum and surprisingly it holds the key to the mystery of spacecraft deceleration. Diagram from Gaseous Conductors, by James D. Cobine, Dover Publications.

As Juergens argued, within our solar system the Sun bears all of the hallmarks of a small spherical anode in a galactic discharge. The planets occupy a vast region within the heliosphere, known in gas discharge theory as the positive column, which has a weak electric field centered on the Sun. Unlike the thin neon tube, the Sun occupies a vast sphere more than 16 billion miles across, so the positive column disappears and the current is carried throughout that volume by a low density of ionization. It requires only that the Sun’s electric field has sufficient strength to cause a drift of electrons toward the Sun, superimposed on their random thermal motion. In other words, it is immeasurably small. Notice that the net charge density in the positive column is zero. In other words, there are an equal number of negative and positive charges in interplanetary space. That is what spacecraft have generally found.

The regions of high electric field are close to the anode and cathode. In the Sun’s case, being the anode, it is in the corona, where electrons are accelerated toward the Sun, causing the apparent million-degree temperatures there, and the protons are accelerated away from the Sun–to form the solar “wind.” The continued acceleration of the positive particles in the solar wind beyond the orbits of Mercury and Venus is a natural consequence of the same weak electric field that slows down the negatively charged spacecraft. The cool photosphere beneath a “hot” corona is, for the first time, understandable if the Sun’s energy is delivered externally.

Of course, the Sun does not have an identifiable cathode in space like the metal cathode in the glow discharge tube. Instead, the plasma in space forms a bubble, known as a “virtual cathode.” Effectively it is the heliopause. In plasma terms, the heliopause is not a result of mechanical shock but is a Langmuir plasma sheath that forms between two plasmas of different charge densities and energies. In this case it forms the boundary between the Sun’s plasma and that of the galaxy. Such “bubbles” are seen at all scales, from the comas of comets to the ‘magnetospheres’ of planets and stars. To the plasma engineer they show that the central body is electrically charged relative to its surroundings.

After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because…

Pioneer 10 has confirmed the electrical model of Stars!

Pioneer 10 is now 7.4 billion miles from Earth, maybe 90 percent of the way to the heliopause. The electrical model of the solar system predicts that additional anomalies will be found if a distant spacecraft encounters the heliopause while still in contact with Earth. For the heliopause is the “cathode drop” region of the Sun’s electrical influence. It is a region of strong radial electric field, which will tend to decelerate the spacecraft more strongly. Almost the full difference between the Sun’s voltage and that of the local arm of the galaxy is present across the heliopause boundary. As a result, it is the region where so-called “anomalous” cosmic rays are generated by the strong field. It has nothing to do with a shock front and some poorly defined acceleration mechanism. Some measure of the driving electrical potential of the Sun may be gained from the study of “anomalous” cosmic rays. Also we can deduce the driving potential of other stars by the study of normal cosmic rays.

The implications of an electrical dimension to stars are profound. Obviously, if we do not understand our closest star, all speculation about more distant stars and their histories are misguided. Of course, it begs the question of the power source that maintains the galactic charge differentials to power stars. It is here that the electric star hypothesis merges seamlessly with plasma cosmology, which also had its origin in electrical engineering. Plasma cosmology, which is now recognized by the IEEE, is practically unknown amongst astronomers and astrophysicists. The latter have been content to ignore the warnings of Hannes Alfvén, the “father” of plasma physics and plasma cosmology, that their use of plasma theory is outdated and wrong.

For example, the spiral arms of a galaxy must carry the electric current that lights the stars. The force between parallel currents varies inversely with distance, instead of the much more rapid fall-off of gravity with the square of the distance. The result is that the longest-range force law in the universe governs galactic motions, and short-range repulsion maintains the integrity of the spiral arms. In comparison, by using the puny force of gravity astrophysicists must insist on the cranky notion that most of the mass in the universe is invisible and distributed in arbitrary fashion. Even so, they cannot explain the preferred spiral structure of galaxies.

Alfven's Take

To Alfvén, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

But if there was no Big Bang, how -and when- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvén explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admited, be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200" he noted. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Alfvén admited that his plasma universe theory may take a long time to penetrate the popular consciousness. "After all," he asserted to a group of physicists, "most people today still believe, perhaps unconsciously, in the heliocentric universe." The group, at first incredulous, quickly nods in agreement as Alfvén continueed, "every newspaper in the land has a section on astrology, yet few have anything at all on astronomy."

Electric Sun verified

Original Article

NEWS ITEM

20 October 2009 Electric Sun Verified �Is it likely that any astonishing new developments are lying in wait for us? Is it possible that the cosmology of 500 years hence will extend as far beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton?� �Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun�s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly. >> Voyagers 1 and 2 (V1 and V2 above) reached the boundary of the Sun�s influence in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories. This shows some of the fine detail of the ribbon in the blow-up section. Credit: SwRI [Click all images to enlarge]. The meter-wide, hexagonal IBEX monitors the edge of the solar system from Earth orbit by �seeing� the heliosphere�s outer boundary in the �light� of energetic neutral hydrogen atoms (ENA�s). The news releases of October 15 highlighted the difficulties this discovery causes. �The thing that�s really shocking is this ribbon,� says IBEX principal investigator David McComas of Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio, Texas. Researchers had expected gusts in the solar wind blowing against the boundary to create 20% or 30% variations in ENA emissions, but the ribbon is 10 times that intense�a narrow band blazing across the sky like some Milky Way on fire. Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there �is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised." �I�m blown away completely,� says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA�s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. �It�s amazing, it�s opened up a new kind of astronomy.� >> Annotated summary of basic findings from the ENA maps of the heliosheath by researchers from the Saturn Cassini mission. Credit: S. M. Krimigis et al., The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. "The expectations of NASA scientists are not being met because their shock front model is incorrect. The boundary that Voyager has reached is more complex and structured than a mechanical impact.� �Wal Thornhill, September 2006. >> The publicized image of the Sun�s interaction with interstellar space is like the shock front of a supersonic aircraft. We are told the �magnetic bubble� of the heliosphere protects us like a cocoon as the Sun and its planets travel through the Milky Way. The concept of Langmuir�s plasma sheath is entirely missing from this picture. It is electrically inert. Image credit: Adler Planetarium/Chicago IBEX has discovered that the heliosheath is dominated not by the Sun but by the Galaxy�s magnetic field. Since the galaxy's magnetic field traces the direction of interstellar electric current flow in space near the Sun, it is a result that conforms to the EU model of galaxies and stars. It is necessary to acknowledge that the cometary heliosphere model seems reasonable when some images of stars do have a cometary appearance. Examples of cometary stars are provided in the NASA news report: >> This image shows photographs of the heliospheres around other stars (called astrospheres) taken by a variety of telescopes. Credit: SwRI [Note that the title of the original has been changed here from �Astrospheres� because it makes the unsupported assumption that all stars have them in this cometary form]. Cometary phenomena are not a simple mechanical effect of an object plowing through a thin gas. Comets are an electrical phenomenon where the comet nucleus is a negative cathode in the Sun�s plasma discharge. Examples of cometary stars are uncommon because stars are normally a positive anode in the galactic discharge. Characteristically, cathodes tend to jet matter into the plasma to form spectacular comas and tails, as seen above. Stars may become comets in the process of electrical capture by a more highly charged star. It is a mistake to assume a cometary astrosphere model for all stars. However, a more fundamental conceptual error is to invoke stellar and galactic �winds� and the notion of tails being �swept downstream.� Astrospheres and comets are plasma discharge phenomena! Electrodynamic forces govern them. Discussions about the �external magnetic forces of the galactic wind� dominating the shape of the heliosphere highlights a curious blindspot in astrophysics. In 1970 the late Hannes Alfv�n counseled against the notion that magnetic fields can exist in space while ignoring their origin in cosmic electric currents and their circuits. Alfv�n predicted an imminent �crisis in cosmology.� I�m sure he never imagined that scientific revolutions could take a century or more in this era of global communication. But specialism and specialist jargon is the enemy of communication and the wide-ranging investigation needed to compose the �big picture� we call cosmology. And no scientist likes to admit their specialty is in crisis. For a more detailed perspective on the astrophysical crisis, I recommend my earlier article of April 2007, �The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square.� There I wrote, �Alfv�n pioneered the stellar circuit concept and it seems his 'wiring diagram' is essentially correct but incomplete because it does not show the star's connection to the larger galactic circuit. Alfv�n remarked, "The [stellar] current closes at large distances, but we do not know where." Plasma cosmologists have supplied the answer by mapping the currents flowing along the arms of spiral galaxies. It is but a small step from there to see that all stars are the focus of Z-pinches within a galactic discharge. Normally the current flows in 'dark mode' so we don't usually see the spectacular bipolar 'wiring harnesses' of hyperactive stars.� The diagram appearing in that article is shown below, re-annotated. >> In 2007, twenty years after it was discovered, �the origin of the triple-ring nebula [of Supernova 1987A] has so far not found a satisfactory explanation.� Meanwhile, in 2005 I explained all three rings of supernova 1987A in terms of a stellar plasma Z-pinch. Above we see the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch experiment (left); the details of the concentric Birkeland current filament cylinders (center); and the 'witness plate' resulting from the galactic Birkeland current filaments in that cylinder striking the matter in the disk expelled from the star at the focus of supernova 1987A. The bright beads are like the effect of a ring of searchlights punching through a thin cloud. The tendency for pairing of the bright circular spots and the extremely slow expansion rate of the equatorial ring suggest the Z-pinch model is correct. A normal star will have the same Z-pinch environment as a supernova but at a much lower energy. So instead of a brilliant ring of lights in the sky, astronomers detect a �bright ribbon� of ENA�s, caused by modest excitation of matter from the Sun�s stellar �wind� by the local galactic Z-pinch. >> This diagram shows a conceptual cross-section along the central axis of the stellar Z-pinch at the Sun�s position. Whether the double layers exist within or outside the heliosphere is unknown. The diameter of the encircling cylinder is unknown. That of supernova 1987A is of the order of a light-year, which would make the diameter of the heliosphere more than 600 times smaller! Note that as a rotating charged body the Sun�s magnetic field is not aligned with the interstellar magnetic field and Z-pinch axis. The Sun�s magnetic field only has influence within the tiny heliosphere but it is modulated by galactic currents. Alfv�n�s axial �double layers� (DLs) have been included although their distance from the Sun is unknown. DLs are produced in current carrying plasma and are the one region where charge separation takes place in plasma and a high voltage is generated across them (see discussion below). The Z-pinch model offers a simple explanation for the �giant ribbon� found wrapped around the heliosphere. The Z-pinch is naturally aligned with the interstellar magnetic field. Solar �wind� ions are scattered and neutralized by electrons from the Birkeland current filaments to form ENA�s coming from the Z-pinch ring, a giant ring about the solar system and orthogonal to the interstellar magnetic field. The Sun�s heliospheric circuit is connected to the galaxy via the central column and the disk of charged particles. The current path is traced by magnetic fields. The �open� helical magnetic fields discovered high above the Sun�s poles by the Ulysses spacecraft are supportive of Alfv�n�s stellar circuit model. And the solar �wind� would seem to connect to the broader disk of charged particles about the heliosphere. Given the detail in this model we should expect, as more data comes in, that researchers may find in the ENA �ribbon,� bright spots, filamentary structures, and movement of the bright spots consistent with rotation of Birkeland current filament pairs and their possible coalescence. The Science journal reports the opinion of one of the researchers that �sorting out the heliosphere�s true shape will take more time �the geometry�s tough. The shape is no doubt somewhere between the two extremes of ideal comet and pure bubble, but all agree that researchers will have to understand how the ribbon forms to know the heliosphere�s true shape.� That is true, but scientists will continue to suffer surprises while they have �no doubt� that the galactic wind and the interstellar magnetic field are the dominant forces that shape the heliosphere. Researchers are keen to see how changes in the solar wind affect the ENA observations as the sun moves toward the maximum of its 11-year cycle. Such observations are very important. The solar cycle is controlled by its local galactic Z-pinch, so any variation in ENA�s may provide some clues about the origin of the quasi-cyclic variability in the circuit supplying DC electrical power to the Sun or �solar cycle.� The �brightness� of the ENA�s should vary, probably out of phase with the solar cycle. In 1984 Alfv�n predicted from his circuit model of the Sun there are two double layers, one connected to each pole at some unknown distance from the Sun or heliosphere. He wrote, �As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory... Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object.� � H. Alfv�n, Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions On Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986. There is some other research to be encouraged by this ENAs discovery, which should throw further light on the Sun�s electrical environment. The axial double layers should be detectable as nearby, fluctuating radio and cosmic ray sources. In fact their oscillation may modulate the current flow and be a source of the solar cycle. Already there has been a report of an unexplained high-energy cosmic ray �hot spot� roughly in the direction of the inferred �heliotail.� The energies of the cosmic rays are in the range possible by acceleration in a galactic double layer (Carlqvist). Confirmation may soon come from observations of high-energy cosmic-ray electrons. The electrons undergo synchrotron and inverse Compton scattering losses and thus cannot travel very far from their sources, which makes them sensitive probes of nearby galactic sources and propagation. If the diagram above is close to the real situation then we might expect cosmic-ray electrons to arrive from the double layer in the opposite direction in the sky to the nuclear cosmic rays. The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. So discoveries from space like this one should trigger experiments in plasma laboratories around the world instead of theorists wasting resources by conjuring up ever more complex and unlikely models based on invalid concepts of space plasma. IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun�s galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field. The beautiful symmetrical patterns that arise in plasma discharges from very simple principles renders all modeling that ignores the electrical nature of matter and the universe worthless. Wal Thornhill Back to top Print friendly page

Black Holes -- An Astronomical Myth

by Tarun Biswas (Jan. 22, 2003)

---

Physics is often a quest for the exotic truth. With many such truths having been discovered in the last century, our need for them has intensified like a drug addiction. Now we often find truth to be not exotic enough. So we settle for the exotic that has little to do with the truth. Einstein's theory of gravity was considered quite exotic at one time. But now we need to ratchet up the "exoticness" with things like black holes. Here I will try to present the "unexotic" truth or the lack thereof in the popular understanding of black holes.

How do I identify a black hole?

Well, how do I identify a nose? When I was young someone must have shown me my nose (and those of others) and told me what it was called. So now, whenever I see a nose, I quickly identify it as such. This is how we all identify most things we see around us. We remember definitions of objects by observation -- let us call this kind of definition a "definition by observation". Then whenever we see a new object we match it with existing definitions in memory.

Unfortunately, the definition of a black hole is not a definition by observation. It is a "definition from theory" -- the theory of general relativity to be precise. This makes identification of a black hole a bit more tricky. General relativity is the theory of gravity as presented by Einstein. It is an improvement over the earlier theory of gravity presented by Newton. It is an improvement because it explains several astronomical observations in the solar system much better than the Newtonian theory. With such spectacular success in the solar system it is natural to want to test the theory beyond the solar system. We must remember here that a theory is only as good as the experiments it explains. So we need some theoretical predictions of Einstein's theory that can be tested experimentally beyond the solar system. Enter the black hole -- a theoretical prediction of general relativity in need of experimental verification. Hence, I conclude that the definition of a black hole comes from theory rather than observation. So, to identify an object as a black hole, we must make sure it matches with the definition from theory and remember that there exists no definition from observation. Moreover, the existence of a theoretical definition does not guarantee the existence of such objects. Only experiment can tell for sure.

Black hole -- the definition from theory.

As one may expect, this theoretical definition of a black hole is deeply mathematical. In the following I shall present some possibly observable effects of the mathematics.

The simplest black holes are spherically symmetric. For any spherically symmetric object (may be a star) one may define an imaginary sphere around it of radius r_s = 2GM/c², where G (= 6.67 X 10^-11 Nm²/kg²) is the universal gravitational constant, M the mass of the object and c the speed of light in vacuum. r_s is called the Schwarzchild radius. If all the material of the object is within this imaginary sphere (that is if the surface of the object is at a radius less than r_s) then this imaginary sphere is called the event horizon and the object is called a black hole. Note that if the radius of the surface of the object is larger than r_s then there is no event horizon and the object is not a black hole.

Now, let us see what the big deal is about this event horizon. The region within the event horizon is usually referred to as "inside the black hole". But first we need to understand all the oddities of the horizon itself. If you stand outside the black hole and watch a clock (or watch) placed precisely on the event horizon, it will appear to have stopped. More generally, if you put a clock in a spaceship and let it fall towards the black hole while you watch it from outside, the clock will appear to progressively slow down. This is the so-called gravitational time dilation. Theoretically, this time dilation becomes infinite at the event horizon (the clock stops). However, this time dilation also makes the spaceship itself fall slower as it gets closer to the event horizon. So, it takes an infinite amount of time to reach the horizon (as seen by you the outside observer) -- which really means that it never gets there. On the other hand, if there is an astronaut in the spaceship, he/she will find the clock working quite normally. Hence, according to the astronaut the spaceship will reach the horizon in finite time and then proceed to go inside the black hole quite eventlessly (provided there is some technology to prevent the spaceship, clock and astronaut from coming apart due to strong gravitational tidal forces!).

While you, the outside observer, watch the spaceship clock getting slower, your own clock is running quite normally (according to you). So, by the time the spaceship clock reaches the horizon, your clock has run out of time (reached infinity in time!). This means whatever happens to the spaceship after it enters the black hole is unseen by you -- hence the name "event horizon". The astronaut, of course, does not reach infinite time at the horizon and hence gets to see what is inside the black hole.

For a rough idea of the Schwarzchild radius, one may compute that of our own Sun. It turns out to be about 3 kilometers. The actual radius of our Sun is about 7 hundred thousand kilometers. So, if this huge bulk is squeezed into a 3 kilometer radius sphere, we would have a black hole.

Myth #1 -- A Black hole can be identified from outside its event horizon.

General relativity shares an interesting feature with its predecessor (Newtonian gravity). The gravitational field outside a spherical star depends only on its mass and gives no clue about its size. What this means is that if our Sun were to suddenly shrink tomorrow (even to black hole dimensions), the planetary orbits would remain unchanged.

This is quite a disappointment for the art of black hole identification. As long as you look at phenomena outside the star and outside the expected event horizon, all gravitational effects will be the same whether the star radius is greater or less than the Schwarzchild radius r_s. Hence, from outside the star one cannot tell if it is collapsed down to its black hole size or not. So, the only way to determine whether a star is a black hole or not would be to send a probe inside it. But we would have to wait literally forever (infinite time) for the probe to even reach the event horizon, let alone go in and return.

Now, I know many claims have been made of observed black holes. The arguments given involve very strong gravity near some stars which produce all kinds of violent activity and what is more there is darkness near the center. But all of this can happen just as well near a very heavy star that is still not a black hole. We have to remember that the definition of a black hole is mathematical and that mathematical definition must be fulfilled before anything can be called a black hole. If we were to take to qualitative definitions like "a black hole looks dark in the middle and sucks up everything around it," we would soon find black holes in our toilets.

Myth #2 -- Some stars can collapse to become black holes.

The popular story is that in a supernova large amounts of mass can get crushed at the center to form a black hole. Well, general relativity disagrees. Think of a black hole being formed by a certain amount of mass M in the form of a fine dust (debris) collapsing due to gravity. It will become a black hole when all of M falls within a sphere of radius r_s = 2GM/c² as given above. But closer it gets to doing this the greater is the time dilation for the outermost pieces of the debris. The last few pieces that need to fall in to form the black hole will take literally forever (infinite time) to do so. Hence, a star cannot collapse to form a black hole. What it can form is a ball of dust which is close to being a black hole at every spherical layer within it but not quite. In such a star, time dilation is so large for every falling piece of debris that it appears to be "frozen" in time. It can be shown that such a "frozen star" would have a density profile that reduces as the inverse square of distance from the center.

So, the only way the universe can have black holes is if they were there all the time. Of course, this is a conclusion of general relativity which is only a theory and a theory can be wrong. However, if general relativity is wrong and we need to abandon it, we would also have to abandon the definition of black holes that comes from it and there exists no other definition.

Myth #3 -- Black holes must be very heavy and dense.

The only condition that a black hole needs to satisfy is the mathematical one given earlier. This definition does not provide any critical mass or density for a black hole. A jug of water (say 1 kg) could become a black hole if squeezed down to a sphere of radius 1.5 X 10^-27 meters (its Schwarzchild radius). At the same time the lightest element hydrogen at standard temperature and pressure could form a black hole if one were to gather up a ball of the gas of radius 4.3 X 10¹³ meters.

The myth started because of a kind of star called white dwarfs. These are stars that cannot collapse any further because of a quantum mechanical effect (Pauli exclusion principle). This effect does not allow more than one electron in any given quantum state. When gravity tries to collapse a star beyond a certain limit, it tries to force electrons into identical quantum states. To avoid this, the electrons generate a reverse pressure that prevents the star from collapsing any further. However, if the mass of the star is beyond a certain limit (called the Chandrasekhar limit), the gravitational forces are strong enough to make the electrons combine with protons to form neutrons. Then there are no more electrons left to produce that reverse pressure and hence stars heavier than the Chandrasekhar limit do not stop collapsing at the white dwarf stage. But then the neutrons in such a star (called a neutron star) also obey Pauli exclusion principle and they produce a new reverse pressure to hold up the star. At this stage some have tried to repeat the Chandrasekhar limit idea and figured that beyond a certain limiting mass even a neutron star will collapse further -- this time into a black hole. This is where the reasoning gets a bit fuzzy. Unlike the earlier mechanism of electrons combining with protons, there is no known nuclear process by which neutrons can combine with anything to cheat Pauli exclusion principle.

But there is really no need to figure out mechanisms of collapse of neutron stars. A neutron star, without any further collapse, could be a black hole (if it has enough mass). For that matter a white dwarf or even a big ball of hydrogen could be a black hole. The reason none of these will actually collapse to become a black hole is the infinite time dilation problem discussed above.

Myth #4 -- Nothing (not even light) can escape from a black hole.

From the point of view of the outside observer, nothing (not even light) ever enters the black hole. So, the question of escape is quite moot in this case. Hence, the question of escape must be from the point of view of the astronaut (and his/her spaceship) falling into the black hole.

The equation of motion (a differential equation) of any small object (an unpowered spaceship in particular) moving around a black hole as seen by an observer on the object can be found in any general relativity text book. It is sometimes called the geodesic equation as the trajectories of objects moving under the influence of gravity alone are called geodesics. Sometimes these trajectories are also called free fall trajectories as an unpowered spaceship will "fall" along these trajectories. The geodesic equation is time-reversal symmetric -- which means that if the unpowered spaceship could "fall" from point A to point B it can also retrace its path back from point B to point A if somehow one could reverse its momentum at point B. As points A and B could be anywhere in general, one could pick point A outside the black hole and point B inside it. This means that if one can go from outside to inside the black hole, one can just as well go the other way if somehow the momentum direction can be reversed. The reversing of momentum requires a finite change in momentum and as it can be done in nonzero time, it can be done by a finite amount of force. This force, of course, has to be nongravitational in nature. It is also expected to be huge. But as long as it is finite, no laws of physics are violated. So one may picture this spaceship with a tiny passenger capsule and a huge fuel compartment that falls freely from point A to B. When it reaches point B the rocket engines start and all the fuel is burnt to produce enough nongravitational force in order to reverse the momentum of just the tiny passenger capsule. Once its job is done, the fuel compartment itself can be ejected allowing the passenger capsule to follow the geodesic backwards and return to point A outside the black hole. Hence, we have escape from a black hole!

The above proof may seem qualitative, but it is actually mathematically complete. I did not have to write down the actual equation because the only aspect of the equation that is relevant to the proof is the time-reversal symmetry.

The "no escape" myth has established itself in literature due to a misinterpretation of a unique feature of geodesics within a black hole. Consider a black hole that has all its mass concentrated at the center. It can be shown that a geodesic entering the black hole at any angle is doomed to spiral into the center. This is in contrast to geodesics that remain outside the black hole. Such outside geodesics can reach a nearest point of approach (from the center) and then move away. This is like paths of comets that come close to the Sun and then move away. However, one must realize that geodesics are paths of freely falling objects only. So, an unpowered spaceship will truly fall to the center of the black hole once it crosses the event horizon (to be precise, once it gets any closer than 3r_s/2 from the center). But as soon as the rocket engines of a spaceship are fired nongravitational forces are applied and the spaceship no longer follows a geodesic. Once the momentum of the spaceship is reversed the rocket engines are turned off and the spaceship is free to follow a geodesic which now happens to be the old geodesic in reverse.

In case a general mathematical proof has not convinced you, I have a computer program for you to play with. It solves the geodesic equation numerically and plots the trajectory of a spaceship if the launch conditions are given.

To download the program click here.

An example of a trajectory plotted by this program is shown below. The red spot is the launch position -- the point B inside the black hole. The green circle is the event horizon. This is an escaping spaceship!

However, there is one little problem. The astronaut (in the spaceship) who went from point A to point B saw the outside observer's time go to infinity when he/she reached the event horizon. So what outside observer time will the astronaut return to after he/she goes into the black hole and returns? General relativity has no answer. This allows us to conjecture freely and create all kinds of science fiction. For example, the astronaut may reappear in a whole new universe with a whole new time line.

The reason for the failure of general relativity here is in its "local" nature. This means that all equations of general relativity are differential equations that hold true at individual points in space-time. When we have to come up with large scale solutions, we merely "tack" on these individual point solutions. Such an approach can get into trouble when the topology of space-time is not simple. For example, for cosmological predictions of general relativity, we need to make ad hoc assumptions about the topology of the universe. General relativity cannot tell us what it should be. In the case of black holes the weird thing is that the astronaut's time line and the outside observer's time line do not have corresponding points everywhere. The infinity of the outside observer's time line maps to the astronaut's time at the point of entry into the black hole. The astronaut's time line clearly has points beyond this point but the outside observer's does not. This mismatch of time lines is a topological one and cannot be addressed by general relativity. However, all such problems would disappear if we assumed that black holes did not exist since time began. As I have shown that new black holes cannot form in finite time, this would make sure that there are never any black holes. Besides, as we cannot identify a black hole from outside, it may not make much physical sense to talk about them anyway.

---

Reader Counter 3230 .