Slashdot Mirror
Can Electricity Travel Through Space on Astrophysical Jets? (mdpi.com)
Slashdot reader Chris Reeve writes: An October 2017 paper titled Electric Currents along Astrophysical Jets reports that "Several researchers have reported direct evidence for large scale electric currents along astrophysical jets." A review of the citations at the end of that paper and others (here and here, for instance) would seem to suggest that one of the great Internet science debates has finally been settled: Electricity does indeed travel through space over vast cosmic distances.
What has been interesting to watch about this unexpected development is that science journalists have so far not explicitly reported this as a shift in theory, and commenters on sites like phys.org appear to deny that any change has even occurred: "The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic." This comment completely rejecting these new findings was highly rated by other phys.org readers, suggesting that the failure to explicitly report this as a change in theory has left this controversial topic in a highly confused state.
The paper summarizes what it calls "observational evidence for the existence of large scale electric currents and their associated grand design helical magnetic fields in kpc-scale astrophysical jets." And the original submitter details the history of the question in a follow-up comment arguing that at our current moment in time, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations."
What has been interesting to watch about this unexpected development is that science journalists have so far not explicitly reported this as a shift in theory, and commenters on sites like phys.org appear to deny that any change has even occurred: "The jets have been shown not to be electric currents, the energy and the physics involved are certainly not electromagnetic." This comment completely rejecting these new findings was highly rated by other phys.org readers, suggesting that the failure to explicitly report this as a change in theory has left this controversial topic in a highly confused state.
The paper summarizes what it calls "observational evidence for the existence of large scale electric currents and their associated grand design helical magnetic fields in kpc-scale astrophysical jets." And the original submitter details the history of the question in a follow-up comment arguing that at our current moment in time, "a mistaken bias against electricity in space continues to dominate conversations."
"Again and again Alfvén reiterated the point: the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today 'are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.'"
Or, you know, angular momentum from before formation being conserved. From your one scientific link:
When examined as a function of distance from the filament axis, a much stronger correlation is found in outer parts, suggesting that the alignment is driven by the laminar infall of gas from sheets to filaments.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Science is a very complex web of interacting theories and experiments. Any new theory has to not only explain a particular phenomena, but to not contradict a great many other experiments. This rules out a great many alternate theories. This isn't taking "sides", it is just trying to find theories that are consistent with experiments.
There is some "bias" against non-scientists, but that is because people outside of the field are unlikely to know all of the measurements that have been done. Scientists don't have infinite time, so they are not likely to be willing to do the leg-work of doing research for people who haven't already done a lot of that work themselves.
It is pretty rare for someone outside of a well established field to make a major contribution.
Scientists do try to find entirely new theories. I was at conference where one of the speakers mentioned how many theories had died the day that LIGO saw gravity waves from the neutron star collision - the measurement that gravity waves traveled at the same speed as electromagnetic radiation to very high precision, ruled out a range of alternative gravity theories.
In this case though, there are lots of effects that depend on the strength of magnetic fields in galaxies so they can't be very far from what is predicted by conventional astrophysics.
So, your suggestion for resolving the debate seems to be that I should just study one side of it.
The suggestion is that in order to resolve the debate, you should learn what the debate actually is about, and how to evaluate the claims made on all sides. You do that by learning physics.
Physics is not a series of dogma you memorize. It is methods to analyze the world, and tools you use to examine whether a proposal actually matches up with observed reality.
If you study physics, you do not study either side of this debate. You study the tools used to determine what is actually consistent with reality, and learn to use them, and then you can use them to analyze all sides of the debate to see what actually matches up with observation.
Your "freedom" now is to treat both sides as dogma, because you do not have the tools to evaluate either side. And dogma is not physics, and physics is not dogma, so you end up doing nothing at all.
The fact that homosexuality is very widespread among other species suggests the trait has some fairly general survival utility (i.e. it's normal, as asserted by the OP).
It's probably more than just a speculation at this point.
Ezekiel 23:20