The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What was happening when there was no magnetic field in universe?  (Read 6366 times)

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
  what was happening  when there was no magnetic field in universe and having gravitional force???

Mod edit - Please make your subjects as the question you wish to ask.  This makes the forum tidier and easier to navigate.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 09:37:53 by BenV »


 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
What makes you think that there was a time when there was no gravitational force?
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Wouldn't that be fun? ::)
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
Wouldn't that be fun? ::)

no dude you will be fun!!!!
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
What the heck are you talking about Mr. Sachin?
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
hmmmm that's what i am asking to you !!!! why are you making fun of my question!!!!!
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
I wasn't making fun of your question. All I was (sarcastically) saying was that: it would be fun if there was no magnetic field in universe and/or no gravity. :)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
I suspect that there was never a time when natures laws did not behave just as they do today. I know of no evidence to the contrary.
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Raghavendra   could you please restate your question in a bit more detail then we might be able to answer it properly.

We are only just beginning to understand the effects of very large scale magnetic fields in shaping galaxies because although they are very weak they can have an effect over vast volumes of space and time and represent quite large amounts of energy. 

As for gravity. This is completely unrelated to electromagnetism.  However there is a gravito magnetic process which again is only just starting to be measured and its affects in the very early phases of the big bang could be very important but are again not yet fully understood.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Raghavendra there seems to have been magnetic fields very early in the universe's history

It was thought that galactic magnetic fields built up over galactic time and that the magnetic fields initially (Big Bang) was very weak and built up after hand as galaxies, suns, etc, developed spinning, in the so called "galactic dynamo" model, but it seems that those stellar 'dynamo mechanisms' isn't responsible for the magnetic fields. Those ideas are starting to be questioned.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26166

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-039-Big-Bang-039-Left-Behind-Magnetic-Field-Remnants-103028.shtml
« Last Edit: 16/03/2009 23:39:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: yor_on's link above
“It would if we also knew that these stars were primordial first stars, which they are not,” Miniati says. In reply, Catala maintains that there are no telescopes on Earth or in orbit that are sensible enough to see the first stars, which are by now several billions of light years away. Nor, he adds, are such telescopes planned for the near future.

Catala also admits that there's a chance these magnetic fields are not primordial, but emphasizes that “This [the find] is completely in agreement with the fossil field theory,” and that the field “could indeed be primordial.” At the very least, the new discovery points out the fact that stellar dynamo mechanisms are not responsible for these magnetic fields, as others suggested in the past.
I read the article several times and still do not understand how they come to the conclusion that a dynamo effect could not be responsible for the observed magnetic fields. Any time a charge is set in motion, a magnetic field is created. Young stars must be full of ions in motion. Why would it take billions of years to set ions in motion?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Vern, the big bang theory predicts that galactic magnetic fields should be weaker the more distant the galaxy is. (New Scientist, March 28, 1992, p. 24) .This one might be a good thing to read:)
I know I will.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

---
You will find another link there with even more material on the Big Bang, redshift and proofs.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 16:54:08 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Quote from: yor_on's link
Second, we have confirmed that the oldest stars in our own galaxy are between 12 and 13 billion years old. Though Pickrell (cf. n. 5) notes that these "were probably not among the universe's very first stars," they would have formed no more than a billion years after the cosmos itself began to form. Though this only proves an age for our galaxy, not necessarily the universe, the result of 14 billion years perfectly matches the most recent calculation of the projected start-point for the universe's observed expansion.
This supposed evidence in favour of the big bang theory is, to me, evidence against it. These 12 and 13 billion year old stars are not first generation stars; they have too many heavy elements in them. First generation stars that produced the heavy elements would require 12 to 13 billion years to live out their existence.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
That is indeed a weighty argument. Do you have any links for it?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
That is indeed a weighty argument. Do you have any links for it?
The quote was from the link you provided. There were many other supposed observations in favour of the big bang cited in the link that seem to me to be arguments against the concept.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Which one :)

Ok, found it.
But those results are rather old. They seem to be from 1997-98.

"A High Deuterium Abundance at Redshift z=0.7," Nature, 17 July, 1997, pp. 250-2: finds far more hydrogen isotopes than there should be; and J. Michael Shull, Lennox Cowie and Antoinette Songaila show there are far more heavy elements strewn throughout the intergalactic voids than anyone thought J. Michael Shull, "Intergalactic Pollution," Nature, 2 July, 1998.

It seems our instruments and data is better now.
----------

Vern I looked and in the process found this.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/08/1517008.aspx
And this one is interesting too.
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/galaxy-hunters.html

"These stars burned brightly and then fizzled after only a few million years, dying in titanic explosions called supernovae. During the brief time these first stars reigned, however, they wrought changes in the universe that had a profound effect on future galaxy formation."

--
And this link discuss it too.
http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/58524-age-oldest-stars.html

---

According to the latest WMAP data the first stars come into existence around 400 millions year after the Big Bang.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 19:34:22 by yor_on »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
yor_on; I see that you've just passed your 1000th post. Should we get you a prize :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
A beer would sit just as fine:)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Too late; I just chug-a-lugged it :)
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
 Hmm i thing i notice from all our member....   Gravition and time will be not there when there is no magnetic field...
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Hmm i thing i notice from all our member....   Gravition and time will be not there when there is no magnetic field...
Hmm...i thing i notice from all our member...Graviton will not be there.
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
hahah ha  a a h ah ha h ah ha hahah ha hah ha  ah   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D correct super man!!!!
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Was that a sarcastic 'hahah ha a a h ah ha' or a real 'hahah ha a a h ah ha'?
 

lyner

  • Guest
I think that Raghavendra has managed to troll you all. Why do you answer this stuff, guys? It only encourages them.
 

Offline Chemistry4me

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7709
    • View Profile
Okay, I'll control myself from now on. :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums