psychegram
The Living Force
I've addressed this to Pierre, as I'm especially interested in his input to this question given his breadth of knowledge, but if anyone else can contribute please do! My apologies for the length of this post: it is necessary in order to establish the background to the question I wish to pose, which I think may be of interest to anyone interested in EU cosmology.
I've been reading 'Earth Changes', and was particularly interested in the argument in the first part of the book that the rotational period of the Earth and, by extension, other celestial bodies, is at least partly (and perhaps primarily) a function of electrical input from the surrounding environment. Let's call this the 'stator' model, after the analogy from electrical systems. The more conventional theory, in which bodies are born with a certain amount of angular momentum which is then gradually lost via various processes (e.g., tidal interactions) we might call the 'spindown' model.
Now, if the stator model is correct, we might expect there to be some correlation between the magnetic field strength of a celestial body and its rotational velocity: bodies with more electrical input will rotate more rapidly and have stronger magnetic fields. This is more or less what we see in the Solar system, although the correlation is far from perfect.
Examination of other celestial bodies can vastly increase our sample. Some background so you know where I'm coming from: I'm working towards a Ph.D. in astrophysics, in particular in the subfield of stellar magnetic fields, with a focus on hot stars. Thanks to a few important methodological advances, stellar magnetometry has taken off over the past decade or so, meaning that we can now directly measure the magnetic field strengths and topologies of a whole host of stars.
Now, if we look at cool stars, such as the Sun (glow mode stars in EU terminology), in fact we do see that those stars with the strongest magnetic fields are also those with the most rapid rotation. So this fits the stator model quite well, at least conceptually. However, it also fits the conventional model quite well. In mainstream astrophysics, the magnetic fields of cool stars are generated internally by dynamos: more rapid rotation naturally leads to a stronger magnetic field. Furthermore, this magnetic field will act to slow down the rotation of the star, which in turn will lead to a weakened magnetic field (this has lead to the birth of a new method known as 'gyrochronology', in which the age of the star is measured via its rotational period). So, considering cool stars in isolation, both models appear to fit the data about equally well.
Things change when we look at the hot stars, however (arc mode stars in EU terminology). In the EU model, these stars are under greater electrical stress than are the glow mode/cool stars. This predicts that they should be rotating much more rapidly. This is precisely what we see: the rotational velocities of most hot stars are much, much higher than those of cool stars. However, we might also expect that, due to the greater current density, arc mode/hot stars should host very strong magnetic fields. In fact, this is precisely the opposite of what we have found. In approximately 90% of cases, we detect no magnetic field at all. Admittedly, the precision of these measurements leads to upper limits on the stellar magnetic field about 10x higher than the level at which we are able to detect fields in cool/glow mode stars, so there is still room in the noise for stronger fields than are hosted by cool stars. However, a non-detection is still a non-detection.
What of the 10% of cases in which we do detect magnetic fields? In these cases the fields are in general much, much stronger than are seen in cool stars. Typically, cool stars range from a few gauss (G) (about the level of the Sun) to perhaps 1 kG at most. The fields in hot stars range from a few hundred G to tens of kG. So, score one stator model, perhaps ... but we have a problem, because the rotational velocities of these stars are much less than are observed for their 'non-magnetic' brethren. So on the one hand, one might say, well, the magnetic hot stars are under even greater electrical stress than are other hot stars, hence the strong magnetic fields ... but then, the EU/stator model would (I expect ... perhaps naively?) predict that these stars should also be more rapidly rotating. Which they are not. Note that there is furthermore no correlation at all between rotational velocity and magnetic field strength in these stars.
The conventional interpretation is as follows. First, only 10% of hot stars have magnetic fields because these field are 'fossil' fields left over from star formation, where magnetic fields above a certain threshold energy density are preserved while those below it decay (the fossil field paradigm is entirely vague about the specifics of this process). Second, the generally slower rotation is a consequence of spindown due to enhanced angular momentum loss via the stellar magnetosphere. Thus, while the standard model isn't sure precisely why these stars have magnetic fields, it does quite well at explaining why those that do rotate more slowly than non-magnetic stars.
As an aside, the same bimodal distribution in magnetic properties (90% undetectable/weak, 10% orders of magnitude stronger) is seen amongst white dwarfs and neutron stars.
So the question is, how can this be resolved within an EU framework? A successful model needs to explain the following:
1) 90% of hot stars with rapid rotation and (relatively) weak magnetic fields
2) 10% of hot stars with slow rotation and (detectably) strong magnetic fields
3) 100% of cool stars with magnetic fields, with rotational velocity and magnetic field strength strongly correlated
Note that the conventional interpretation considers the non-magnetic and magnetic hot stars to be separate populations. I think it would particularly interesting to show that they are in fact a single population. One idea I've had is that perhaps the magnetic hot stars have undergone some anomaly in their current supply, perhaps an interruption, which has led their magnetic fields to reconfigure from an essentially undetectable toroidal topology to a more easily detectable poloidal topology, so as to maintain equilibrium. Another, related possibility might be magnetic activity cycles within hot stars, leading to reconfigurations between poloidal and toroidal fields, with the star spending the majority of its time in the toroidal configuration ... but this runs into another difficulty, namely that we observe no evolution at all of the stellar magnetic fields (this is in contrast to cool stars, pretty well all of which show magnetic activity cycles analogous to those of the Sun).
This might all seem rather esoteric, but given the weaknesses of the mainstream's rather ad hoc treatment of these problems, I've had a growing suspicion that a successful resolution within an EU framework (i.e. a unified model of stellar magnetism, rotation, and evolution) might well prove to be a crucial line of evidence with which to get astronomers to reconsider their ideas of how stars work. At the same time, the lack of a decent EU explanation makes the known facts about magnetism amongst the hot stars a powerful line of evidence against an electrical cosmos.
I've been reading 'Earth Changes', and was particularly interested in the argument in the first part of the book that the rotational period of the Earth and, by extension, other celestial bodies, is at least partly (and perhaps primarily) a function of electrical input from the surrounding environment. Let's call this the 'stator' model, after the analogy from electrical systems. The more conventional theory, in which bodies are born with a certain amount of angular momentum which is then gradually lost via various processes (e.g., tidal interactions) we might call the 'spindown' model.
Now, if the stator model is correct, we might expect there to be some correlation between the magnetic field strength of a celestial body and its rotational velocity: bodies with more electrical input will rotate more rapidly and have stronger magnetic fields. This is more or less what we see in the Solar system, although the correlation is far from perfect.
Examination of other celestial bodies can vastly increase our sample. Some background so you know where I'm coming from: I'm working towards a Ph.D. in astrophysics, in particular in the subfield of stellar magnetic fields, with a focus on hot stars. Thanks to a few important methodological advances, stellar magnetometry has taken off over the past decade or so, meaning that we can now directly measure the magnetic field strengths and topologies of a whole host of stars.
Now, if we look at cool stars, such as the Sun (glow mode stars in EU terminology), in fact we do see that those stars with the strongest magnetic fields are also those with the most rapid rotation. So this fits the stator model quite well, at least conceptually. However, it also fits the conventional model quite well. In mainstream astrophysics, the magnetic fields of cool stars are generated internally by dynamos: more rapid rotation naturally leads to a stronger magnetic field. Furthermore, this magnetic field will act to slow down the rotation of the star, which in turn will lead to a weakened magnetic field (this has lead to the birth of a new method known as 'gyrochronology', in which the age of the star is measured via its rotational period). So, considering cool stars in isolation, both models appear to fit the data about equally well.
Things change when we look at the hot stars, however (arc mode stars in EU terminology). In the EU model, these stars are under greater electrical stress than are the glow mode/cool stars. This predicts that they should be rotating much more rapidly. This is precisely what we see: the rotational velocities of most hot stars are much, much higher than those of cool stars. However, we might also expect that, due to the greater current density, arc mode/hot stars should host very strong magnetic fields. In fact, this is precisely the opposite of what we have found. In approximately 90% of cases, we detect no magnetic field at all. Admittedly, the precision of these measurements leads to upper limits on the stellar magnetic field about 10x higher than the level at which we are able to detect fields in cool/glow mode stars, so there is still room in the noise for stronger fields than are hosted by cool stars. However, a non-detection is still a non-detection.
What of the 10% of cases in which we do detect magnetic fields? In these cases the fields are in general much, much stronger than are seen in cool stars. Typically, cool stars range from a few gauss (G) (about the level of the Sun) to perhaps 1 kG at most. The fields in hot stars range from a few hundred G to tens of kG. So, score one stator model, perhaps ... but we have a problem, because the rotational velocities of these stars are much less than are observed for their 'non-magnetic' brethren. So on the one hand, one might say, well, the magnetic hot stars are under even greater electrical stress than are other hot stars, hence the strong magnetic fields ... but then, the EU/stator model would (I expect ... perhaps naively?) predict that these stars should also be more rapidly rotating. Which they are not. Note that there is furthermore no correlation at all between rotational velocity and magnetic field strength in these stars.
The conventional interpretation is as follows. First, only 10% of hot stars have magnetic fields because these field are 'fossil' fields left over from star formation, where magnetic fields above a certain threshold energy density are preserved while those below it decay (the fossil field paradigm is entirely vague about the specifics of this process). Second, the generally slower rotation is a consequence of spindown due to enhanced angular momentum loss via the stellar magnetosphere. Thus, while the standard model isn't sure precisely why these stars have magnetic fields, it does quite well at explaining why those that do rotate more slowly than non-magnetic stars.
As an aside, the same bimodal distribution in magnetic properties (90% undetectable/weak, 10% orders of magnitude stronger) is seen amongst white dwarfs and neutron stars.
So the question is, how can this be resolved within an EU framework? A successful model needs to explain the following:
1) 90% of hot stars with rapid rotation and (relatively) weak magnetic fields
2) 10% of hot stars with slow rotation and (detectably) strong magnetic fields
3) 100% of cool stars with magnetic fields, with rotational velocity and magnetic field strength strongly correlated
Note that the conventional interpretation considers the non-magnetic and magnetic hot stars to be separate populations. I think it would particularly interesting to show that they are in fact a single population. One idea I've had is that perhaps the magnetic hot stars have undergone some anomaly in their current supply, perhaps an interruption, which has led their magnetic fields to reconfigure from an essentially undetectable toroidal topology to a more easily detectable poloidal topology, so as to maintain equilibrium. Another, related possibility might be magnetic activity cycles within hot stars, leading to reconfigurations between poloidal and toroidal fields, with the star spending the majority of its time in the toroidal configuration ... but this runs into another difficulty, namely that we observe no evolution at all of the stellar magnetic fields (this is in contrast to cool stars, pretty well all of which show magnetic activity cycles analogous to those of the Sun).
This might all seem rather esoteric, but given the weaknesses of the mainstream's rather ad hoc treatment of these problems, I've had a growing suspicion that a successful resolution within an EU framework (i.e. a unified model of stellar magnetism, rotation, and evolution) might well prove to be a crucial line of evidence with which to get astronomers to reconsider their ideas of how stars work. At the same time, the lack of a decent EU explanation makes the known facts about magnetism amongst the hot stars a powerful line of evidence against an electrical cosmos.
