Tag Archives: astronomy

Dark matter: why our galaxy still has its arms

Leave a reply

Our galaxy may have two arms, or perhaps four. It was thought to be four until 2008, when it was reduced to two. Then, in 2015, it was expanded again to four arms, but recent research suggests it’s only two again. About 70% of galaxies have arms, easily counted from the outside, as in the picture below. Apparently it’s hard to get a good view from the inside.

Four armed, spiral galaxy, NGC 2008. There is a debate over whether our galaxy looks like this, or if there are only two arms. Over 70% of all galaxies are spiral galaxies. 

Logically speaking, we should not expect a galaxy to have arms at all. For a galaxy to have arms, it must rotate as a unit. Otherwise, even if the galaxy had arms when it formed, it would lose them by the time the outer rim rotated even once. As it happens we know the speed of rotation and age of galaxies; they’ve all rotated 10 to 50 times since they formed.

For stable rotation, the rotational acceleration must match the force of gravity and this should decrease with distances from the massive center. Thus, we’d expect that the stars should circle much faster the closer they are to the center of the galaxy. We see that Mercury circles the sun much faster than we do, and that we circle much faster than the outer planets. If stars circled the galactic core this way, any arm structure would be long gone. We see that the galactic arms are stable, and to explain it, we’ve proposed the existence of lots of unseen, dark matter. This matter has to have some peculiar properties, behaving as a light gas that doesn’t spin with the rest of the galaxy, or absorb light, or reflect. Some years ago, I came to believe that there was only one gas distribution that fit, and challenged folks to figure out the distribution.

The mass of the particles that made up this gas has to be very light, about 10-7 eV, about 2 x 1012 lighter than an electron, and very slippery. Some researchers had posited large, dark rocks, but I preferred to imagine a particle called the axion, and I expected it would be found soon. The particle mass had to be about this or it would shrink down to the center of he galaxy or start to spin, or fill the universe. Ina ny of these cases, galaxies would not be stable. The problem is, we’ve been looking for years, and not only have we not seen any particle like this. What’s more, continued work on the structure of matter suggests that no such particle should exist. At this point, galactic stability is a bigger mystery than it was 40 years ago.;

So how to explain galactic stability if there is no axion. One thought, from Mordechai Milgrom, is that gravity does not work as we thought. This is an annoying explanation: it involves a complex revision of General Relativity, a beautiful theory that seems to be generally valid. Another, more recent explanation is that the dark matter is regular matter that somehow became an entangled, super fluid despite the low density and relatively warm temperatures of interstellar space. This has been proposed by Justin Khoury, here. Either theory would explain the slipperiness, and the fact that the gas does not interact with light, but the details don’t quite work. For one, I’d still think that the entangled particle mass would have to be quite light; maybe a neutrino would fit (entangled neutrinos?). Super fluids don’t usually exist at space temperatures and pressures, and long distances (light years) should preclude entanglements, and neutrinos don’t seem to interact at all.

Sabine Hossenfelder suggests a combination of modified gravity and superfluidity. Some version of this might fit observations better, but doubles the amount of new physics required. Sabine does a good science video blog, BTW, with humor and less math. She doesn’t believe in Free will or religion, or entropy. By her, the Big Bang was caused by a mystery particle called an inflateon that creates mass and energy from nothing. She claims that the worst thing you can do in terms of resource depletion is have children, and seems to believe religious education is child abuse. Some of her views I agree with, with many, I do not. I think entropy is fundamental, and think people are good. Also, I see no advantage in saying “In the beginning an inflateon created the heavens and the earth”, but there you go. It’s not like I know what dark matter is any better than she does.

There are some 200 billion galaxies, generally with 100 billion stars. Our galaxy is about 150,000 light years across, 1.5 x 1018 km. It appears to behave, more or less, as a solid disk having rotated about 15 full turns since its formation, 10 billion years ago. The speed at the edge is thus about π x 1.5 x 1018 km/ 3 x 1016 s = 160km/s. That’s not relativistic, but is 16 times the speed of our fastest rockets. The vast majority of the mass of our galaxy would have to be dark matter, with relatively little between galaxies. Go figure.

Robert Buxbaum, May 24, 2023. I’m a chemical engineer, PhD, but studied some physics and philosophy.

Why the earth is magnetic with the north pole heading south.

Leave a reply

The magnetic north pole, also known as true north, has begun moving south. It had been moving toward the north pole thought the last century. It moved out of Canadian waters about 15 years ago, heading toward Russia. This year it passed as close to the North pole as it is likely to, and begun heading south (Das Vedanga, old friend). So this might be a good time to ask “why is it moving?” or better yet, “Why does it exist at all?” Sorry to say the Wikipedia page is little help here; what little they say looks very wrong. So I thought I’d do my thing and write an essay.

The motion of the magnetic (true) north pole over the last century; it's nearly at the north pole.

Migration of the magnetic (true) north pole over the last century; it’s at 8°N and just passed the North Pole.

Your first assumption of the cause of the earth’s magnetic field would involve ferromagnetism: the earth’s core is largely iron and nickel, two metals that permanent magnets. Although the earth’s core is very hot, far above the “Curie Temperature” where permanent magnets form, you might imagine that some small degree of magnetizability remains. You’d be sort of right here and sort of wrong; to see why, lets take a diversion into the Curie Temperature (Pierre Curie in this case) before presenting a better explanation.

The reason there is no magnetism above the Curie temperature is similar to the reason that you can’t have a plague outbreak or an atom bomb if R-naught is less than one. Imagine a magnet inside a pot of iron. The surrounding iron will dissipate some of the field because magnets are dipoles and the iron occupies space. Fixed dipole effects dissipate with a distance relation of r-4; induced dipoles with a relation r-6. The iron surrounding the magnet will also be magnetized to an extent that augments the original, but the degree of magnetization decreases with temperature. Above some critical temperature, the surrounding dissipates more than it adds and the effect is that the original magnetic effect will die out if the original magnet is removed. It’s the same way that plagues die out if enough people are immunized, discussed earlier.

The earth rotates, and the earth's surface is negatively charged. There is thus some room for internal currents.

The earth rotates, and the earth’s surface is negatively charged. There is thus some room for internal currents.

It seems that the earth’s magnetic field is electromagnetic; that is, it’s caused by a current of some sort. According to Wikipedia, the magnetic field of the earth is caused by electric currents in the molten iron and nickel of the earth’s core. While there is a likely current within the core, I suspect that the effect is small. Wikipedia provides no mechanism for this current, but the obvious one is based on the negative charge of the earth’s surface. If the charge on the surface is non-uniform, It is possible that the outer part of the earth’s core could become positively charged rather the way a capacitor charges. You’d expect some internal circulation of the liquid the metal of the core, as shown above – it’s similar to the induced flow of tornadoes — and that flow could induce a magnetic field. But internal circulation of the metallic core does not seem to be a likely mechanism of the earth’s field. One problem: the magnitude of the field created this way would be smaller than the one caused by rotation of the negatively charged surface of the earth, and it would be in the opposite direction. Besides, it is not clear that the interior of the planet has any charge at all: The normal expectation is for charge to distribute fairly uniformly on a spherical surface.

The TV series, NOVA presents a yet more unlikely mechanism: That motion of the liquid metal interior against the magnetic field of the earth increases the magnetic field. The motion of a metal in a magnetic field does indeed produce a field, but sorry to say, it’s in the opposing direction, something that should be obvious from conservation of energy.

The true cause of the earth’s magnet field, in my opinion, is the negative charge of the earth and its rotation. There is a near-equal and opposite charge of the atmosphere, and its rotation should produce a near-opposite magnetic field, but there appears to be enough difference to provide for the field we see. The cause for the charge on the planet might be due to solar wind or the ionization of cosmic rays. And I notice that the average speed of parts of the atmosphere exceeds that of the surface —  the jet-stream, but it seems clear to me that the magnetic field is not due to rotation of the jet stream because, if that were the cause, magnetic north would be magnetic south. (When positive charges rotate from west to east, as in the jet stream, the magnetic field created in a North magnetic pole a the North pole. But in fact the North magnetic pole is the South pole of a magnet — that’s why the N-side of compasses are attracted to it, so … the cause must be negative charge rotation. Or so it seems to me.  Supporting this view, I note that the magnet pole sometimes flips, north for south, but this is only following a slow decline in magnetic strength, and it never points toward a spot on the equator. I’m going to speculate that the flip occurs when the net charge reverses, thought it could also come when the speed or charge of the jet stream picks up. I note that the magnetic field of the earth varies through the 24 hour day, below.

The earth's magnetic strength varies regularly through the day.

The earth’s magnetic strength varies regularly through the day.

Although magnetic north is now heading south, I don’t expect it to flip any time soon. The magnetic strength has been decreasing by about 6.3% per century. If it continues at that rate (unlikely) it will be some 1600 years to the flip, and I expect that the decrease will probably slow. It would probably take a massive change in climate to change the charge or speed of the jet stream enough to reverse the magnetic poles. Interestingly though, the frequency of magnetic strength variation is 41,000 years, the same frequency as the changes in the planet’s tilt. And the 41,000 year cycle of changes in the planet’s tilt, as I’ve described, is related to ice ages.

Now for a little math. Assume there are 1 mol of excess electrons on a large sphere of the earth. That’s 96500 Coulombs of electrons, and the effective current caused by the earth’s rotation equals 96500/(24 x3600) = 1.1 Amp = i. The magnetic field strength, H =  i N µ/L where H is magnetizability field in oersteds, N is the number of turns, in this case 1, µ is the magnetizability. The magnetizability of air is 0.0125 meter-oersteds/ per ampere-turn, and that of a system with an iron core is about 200 times more, 2.5 meter-tesla/ampere-turn. L is a characteristic length of the electromagnet, and I’ll say that’s 10,000 km or 107 meters. As a net result, I calculate a magnetic strength of 2.75×10-7 Tesla, or .00275 Gauss. The magnet field of the earth is about 0.3 gauss, suggesting that about 100 mols of excess charge are involved in the earth’s field, assuming that my explanation and my math are correct.

At this point, I should mention that Venus has about 1/100 the magnetic field of the earth despite having a molten metallic core like the earth. It’s rotation time is 243 days. Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus have greater magnetic fields despite having no metallic cores — certainly no molten metallic cores (some theorize a core of solid, metallic hydrogen). The rotation time of all of these is faster than the earth’s.

Robert E. Buxbaum, February 3, 2019. I have two pet peeves here. One is that none of the popular science articles on the earth’s magnetic field bother to show math to back their claims. This is a growing problem in the literature; it robs science of science, and makes it into a political-correctness exercise where you are made to appreciate the political fashion of the writer. The other peeve, related to the above concerns the game it’s thoroughly confusing, and politically ego-driven. The gauss is the cgs unit of magnetic flux density, this unit is called G in Europe but B in the US or England. In the US we like to use the tesla T as an SI – mks units. One tesla equals 104 gauss. The oersted, H is the unit of magnetizing field. The unit is H and not O because the English call this unit the henry because Henry did important work in magnetism.  One ampere-turn per meter is equal to 4π x 10−3 oersted, a number I approximated to 0.125 above. But the above only refers to flux density; what about flux itself? The unit for magnetic flux is the weber, Wb in SI, or the maxwell, Mx in cgs. Of course, magnetic flux is nothing more than the integral of flux density over an area, so why not describe flux in ampere-meters or gauss-acres? It’s because Ampere was French and Gauss was German, I think.

James Croll, janitor scientist; man didn’t cause warming or ice age

1 Reply

When politicians say that 98% of published scientists agree that man is the cause of global warming you may wonder who the other scientists are. It’s been known at least since the mid 1800s that the world was getting warmer; that came up talking about the president’s “Resolute” desk, and the assumption was that the cause was coal. The first scientist to present an alternate theory was James Croll, a scientist who learned algebra only at 22, and got to mix with high-level scientists as the janitor at the Anderson College in Glasgow. I think he is probably right, though he got some details wrong, in my opinion.

James Croll was born in 1821 to a poor farming family in Scotland. He had an intense interest in science, but no opportunity for higher schooling. Instead he worked on the farm and at various jobs that allowed him to read, but he lacked a mathematics background and had no one to discuss science with. To learn formal algebra, he sat in the back of a class of younger students. Things would have pretty well ended there but he got a job as janitor for the Anderson College (Scotland), and had access to the library. As janitor, he could read journals, he could talk to scientists, and he came up with a theory of climate change that got a lot of novel things right. His idea was that there were  regular ice ages and warming periods that would follow in cycles. In his view these were a product of the precession of the equinox and the fact that the earth’s orbit was not round, but elliptical, with an eccentricity of 1.7%. We are 3.4% closer to the sun on January 3 than we are on July 4, but the precise dates changes slowly because of precession of the earth’s axis, otherwise known as precession of the equinox.

Currently, at the spring equinox, the sun is in “the house of Pisces“. This is to say, that a person who looks at the stars all the night of the spring equinox will be able to see all of the constellations of the zodiac except for the stars that represent Pisces (two fish). But the earth’s axes turns slowly, about 1 days worth of turn every 70 years, one rotation every 25,770 years. Some 1800 years ago, the sun would have been in the house of Ares, and 300 years from now, we will be “in the age of Aquarius.” In case you wondered what the song, “age of Aquarius” was about, it’s about the precession of the equinox.

Our current spot in the precession, according to Croll is favorable to warmth. Because we are close to the sun on January 3, our northern summers are less-warm than they would be otherwise, but longer; in the southern hemisphere summers are warmer but shorter (southern winters are short because of conservation of angular momentum). The net result, according to Croll should be a loss of ice at both poles, and slow warming of the earth. Cooling occurs, according to Croll, when the earth’s axis tilt is 90° off the major axis of the orbit ellipse, 6300 years before or after today. Similar to this, a decrease in the tilt of the earth would cause an ice age (see here for why). Earth tilt varies over a 42,000 year cycle, and it is now in the middle of a decrease. Croll’s argument is that it takes a real summer to melt the ice at the poles; if you don’t have much of a tilt, or if the tilt is at the wrong time, ice builds making the earth more reflective, and thus a little colder and iceier each year; ice extends south of Paris and Boston. Eventually precession and tilt reverses the cooling, producing alternating warm periods and ice ages. We are currently in a warm period.

Global temperatures measured from the antarctic ice showing stable, cyclic chaos and self-similarity.

Global temperatures measured from the antarctic ice showing stable, cyclic chaos and self-similarity.

At the time Croll was coming up with this, it looked like numerology. Besides, most scientists doubted that ice ages happened in any regular pattern. We now know that ice ages do happen periodically and think that Croll must have been on to something. See figure; the earth’s temperature shows both a 42,000 year cycle and a 23,000 year cycle with ice ages coming every 100,000 years.

In the 1920s a Serbian Mathematician, geologist, astronomer, Milutin Milanković   proposed a new version of Croll’s theory that justified longer space between ice ages based on the beat frequency between a 23,000 year time for axis precession, and the 42,000 year time for axis tilt variation. Milanković used this revised precession time because the ellipse precesses, and thus the weather-related precession of the axis is 23,000 years instead of 25,770 years. The beat frequency is found as follows:

51,000 = 23,000 x 42,000 / (42000-23000).

As it happens neither Croll’s nor Milanković’s was accepted in their own lifetimes. Despite mounting evidence that there were regular ice ages, it was hard to believe that these small causes could produce such large effects. Then, in a 1976 study (Hayes, Imbrie, and Shackleton) demonstrated clear climate variations based on the mud composition from New York and Arizona. The variations followed all four of the Milankocitch cycles.

Southern hemisphere ice is growing, something that confounds CO2-centric experts

Southern hemisphere ice is growing, something that confounds CO2-centric experts

Further confirmation came from studying the antarctic ice, above. You can clearly see the 23,000 year cycle of precession, the 41,000 year cycle of tilt, the 51,000 year beat cycle, and also a 100,000 year cycle that appears to correspond to 100,000 year changes in the degree of elliptic-ness of the orbit. Our orbit goes from near circular to quite elliptic (6.8%) with a cycle time effectively of 100,000 years. It is currently 1.7% elliptic and decreasing fast. This, along with the decrease in earth tilt suggests that we are soon heading to an ice age. According to Croll, a highly eccentric orbit leads to warming because the minor access of the ellipse is reduced when the orbit is lengthened. We are now heading to a less-eccentric orbit; for more details go here; also for why the orbit changes and why there is precession.

We are currently near the end of a 7,000 year warm period. The one major thing that keeps maintaining this period seems to be that our precession is such that we are closest to the sun at nearly the winter solstice. In a few thousand years all the factors should point towards global cooling, and we should begin to see the glaciers advance. Already the antarctic ice is advancing year after year. We may come to appreciate the CO2 produced by cows and Chinese coal-burning as these may be all that hold off the coming ice age.

Robert Buxbaum, November 16, 2018.

Of God and Hubble

4 Replies

Edwin Hubble and Andromeda Photograph

Edwin Hubble and Andromeda Photograph

Perhaps my favorite proof of God is that, as best we can tell using the best science we have, everything we see today, popped into existence some 14 billion years ago. The event is called “the big bang,” and before that, it appears, there was nothing. After that, there was everything, and as best we can tell, not an atom has popped into existence since. I see this as the miracle of creation: Ex nihilo, Genesis, Something from nothing.

The fellow who saw this miracle first was an American, Edwin P. Hubble, born 1889. Hubble got a law degree and then a PhD (physics) studying photographs of faint nebula. That is, he studied the small, glowing, fuzzy areas of the night sky, producing a PhD thesis titled: “Photographic Investigations of Faint Nebulae.” Hubble served in the army (WWI) and continued his photographic work at the Mount Wilson Observatory, home to the world’s largest telescope at the time. He concluded that many of these fuzzy nebula were complete galaxies outside of our own. Most of the stars we see unaided are located relatively near us, in our own, local area, or our own, “Milky Way” galaxy, that is within a swirling star blob that appears to be some 250,000 light years across. Through study of photographs of the Andromeda “nebula”, Hubble concluded it was another swirling galaxy quite like ours, but some 900,000 light years away. (A light year is 5,900,000,000 miles, the distance light would travel in a year). Finding another galaxy was a wonderful find; better yet, there were more swirling galaxies besides Andromeda, about 100 billion of them, we now think. Each galaxy contains about 100 billion stars; there is plenty of room for intelligent life. 

Emission from Galaxy NGC 5181. The bright, hydrogen ß line should be at but it's at

Emission spectrum from Galaxy NGC 5181. The bright, hydrogen ß line should be at 4861.3 Å, but it’s at about 4900 Å. This difference tells you the speed of the galaxy.

But the discovery of galaxies beyond our own is not what Hubble is most famous for. Hubble was able to measure the distance to some of these galaxies, mostly by their apparent brightness, and was able to measure the speed of the galaxies relative to us by use of the Doppler shift, the same phenomenon that causes a train whistle to sound differently when the train is coming towards you or going away from you. In this case, he used the frequency spectrum of light for example, at right, for NGC 5181. The color of the spectral lines of light from the galaxy is shifted to the red, long wavelengths. Hubble picked some recognizable spectral line, like the hydrogen emission line, and determined the galactic velocity by the formula,

V= c (λ – λ*)/λ*.

In this equation, V is the velocity of the galaxy relative to us, c is the speed of light, 300,000,000 m/s, λ is the observed wavelength of the particular spectral line, and λ*is the wavelength observed for non-moving sources. Hubble found that all the distant galaxies were moving away from us, and some were moving quite fast. What’s more, the speed of a galaxy away from us was roughly proportional to the distance. How odd. There were only two explanations for this: (1) All other galaxies were propelled away from us by some, earth-based anti-gravity that became more powerful with distance (2) The whole universe was expanding at a constant rate, and thus every galaxy sees itself moving away from every other galaxy at a speed proportional to the distance between them.

This second explanation seems a lot more likely than the first, but it suggests something very interesting. If the speed is proportional to the distance, and you carry the motion backwards in time, it seems there must have been a time, some 14 billion years ago, when all matter was in one small bit of space. It seems there was one origin spot for everything, and one origin time when everything popped into existence. This is evidence for creation, even for God. The term “Big Bang” comes from a rival astronomer, Fred Hoyle, who found the whole creation idea silly. With each new observation of a galaxy moving away from us, the idea became that much less silly. Besides, it’s long been known that the universe can’t be uniform and endless.

Whatever we call the creation event, we can’t say it was an accident: a lot of stuff popped out at one time, and nothing at all similar has happened since. Nor can we call it a random fluctuation since there are just too many stars and too many galaxies in close proximity to us for it to be the result of random atoms moving. If it were all random, we’d expect to see only one star and our one planet. That so much stuff popped out in so little time suggests a God of creation. We’d have to go to other areas of science to suggest it’s a personal God, one nearby who might listen to prayer, but this is a start. 

If you want to go through the Hubble calculations yourself, you can find pictures and spectra of galaxies here for the 24 or so original galaxies studied by Hubble: http://astro.wku.edu/astr106/Hubble_intro.html. Based on your analysis, you’ll likely calculate a slightly different time for creation from the standard 14 billion, but you’ll find you calculate something close to what Hubble did. To do better, you’ll need to look deeper into space, and that would take a better telescope, e.g.  the “Hubble space telescope”

Robert E. Buxbaum, October 28, 2018.

The universe is not endless

3 Replies

You may have heard that the universe is not endless, ending at a brick wall, perhaps, some 15 billion light years out. But what you may not know is that there is a classic proof, going back to the middle ages to show that the universe is not an endless expanse of stars.

Consider an endless universe with a uniform distribution of stars. We would expect that, in any large-enough space of this universe there would have to be many stars, e.g. between 100 and 101 trillion miles from earth. At this distance, each of these stars is close enough to see, and the combination of them (the sum in this volumetric shell) will shed a small amount of heat on the earth. Now consider another shell, the same thickness but twice as far from us; if the universe is uniform, there will be 4 times as many stars, but since these stars will be at twice the distance; that is between 200 and 201 trillion miles from earth, each star will present us with ¼ as much heat as the stars in the first shell. Now, since there are 4 times more stars, the total effect is to radiate as much heat to us as from the first shell.

The same argument goes for each shell of 1 trillion miles thick: each one presents us with the same amount of heat. If the universe is infinite and uniform, we find there will be an infinite number of shells radiating this amount of heat, and therefore an infinite amount of heat bathing us. We should expect to roast from all of it. Since we have not roasted, we conclude that the universe is not an endless, uniform expanse.

The universe could still be uniform and not endless (ending with a brick wall, as in the Hitch-hikers guide), or it could be expanding from a big bang 15 Billion years ago. This latter is suggested by the red shift, but not a favored solution of creationists for some reason. Or it could be a closed, oscillating (or not) 4 dimensional hypersphere (Einstein). That is, it could be a non Euclidean, black hole. Or it could be fractal (Mandelbrot). Or it could be a combination of all of the above.

For a thought about galactic arms see here. October 22, 2012.