Plasma Tubes in the Sky

Georgi and Zeeya,

"Fascinating", thanks for finding and sharing!

Faraday would be proud of Cleo Loi, and her simple description is well stated where she says that the ionized tubular structures not only align with magnetic field lines, but 'And they can move on their own accord.' The field lines are differentiated from an otherwise continuous homogeneous field by the aggregate domains interacting in the complex of both earth as magneto and atmosphere as conductor, and the continual reshaping of the structures being a second order of those effects (Jump right in here, Pete!). But the motion 'of their own accord' goes directly to classical randominity of a continuum in a state of diffeomorphism (Hallelujah, Tom!).

Great Find! Georgina, there's lots to see here! It's going to be (or should be) great fun to watch and learn. Thanks for highlighting it, Zeeya. jrc

A truly impressive discovery. Thanks to Georgina and Zeeya.

In addition to Ms Loi proving: "...that the Earth's atmosphere is embedded with these strangely shaped, tubular plasma structures. The complex, multilayered ducts are created by the atmosphere being ionised by sunlight", I came across this article today, 'Dark matter's deep reach' in a Nigerian newspaper, with credits given to the New York Times Service. In it, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder who I think is an FQXi member is quoted. Some excerpts from the article, some facts and some questions arising:

EXCERPTS

Earlier this year, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist in Stockholm, made the jarring suggestion that dark matter might cause cancer.

Somewhere from 10 to a few thousand times a year, Hossenfelder estimated, a WIMP may happen to strike one of our own atoms, including some that make up DNA. The energy would be strong enough to break molecular bonds and cause mutations.

But Rampino has added another twist: During Earth's galactic voyage, dark matter accumulates in its core.

Said to be five times more abundant than the stuff we can see, dark matter is a crucial component of the theory behind gravitational lensing, in which large masses like galaxies can bend light beams and cause stars to appear in unexpected parts of the sky.

INDISPUTABLE FACTS

FACT 1. The strangely shaped complex tubular plasma structures discovery by Ms Loi are earth-bound matter embedded in earth's atmosphere.

FACT 2. The earth is moving about the Sun at about 30km/s and these structures MUST therefore also be in motion along with it.

FACT 3. Ms Loi said the drifting plasma tubes could distort astronomical data, especially satellite-based navigation systems, THEREFORE light's behavior and propagation can be influenced by these matter.

FACT 4. "We found that the ionisation patterns in the ionosphere are quite structured. They flow in these tubular structures that are aligned with the Earth's magnetic field. And they can then move of their own accord.", THEREFORE these structures while having a motion of their own accord, are also having another motion which is that of the earth's, i.e. moving of objects within a moving ship. Recall Galileo's ship in Salviati's experiment.

FACT 5. Whether matter in which light propagates is moving or still relative to an observer has an influence on light dynamics. Light moving in same direction as the MOVING matter is hastened; that moving against the direction of MOVING matter is delayed; while light propagating in matter STATIONARY to the observer is uninfluenced, in spite of the fact that in some other frame, ALL, i.e. the laboratory, the observer, the matter may be moving in some other frame, e.g. relative to the Sun at 30,000km/s. That solar motion, or even galactic or motion relative to CMBR has no influence whatsoever on the local experiments in the ship - a Galilean relativity principle. Just as such motion have no influence on local Sound dynamics, as the matter (Air) is stationary to the equally stationary earth-based observer.

QUESTIONS ARISING:

1. What is the influence of the presence of these matter on earth-surface light experiments to discover the effects of earth motion on light?

2. If as Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder suggests that dark matter might cause cancer, a biological consideration, has dark matter not already caused cancer in our physics by interfering with the Michelson-Morley experiment, which in some way is the DNA on which Relativity theory has been built? Or are we to suppose the influence of dark matter is only on biology and not on physics?

3. Can something which is said to be five times more abundant than the stuff we can see, be interacting only somewhere from 10 to a few thousand times a year with the stuff that we can see, (i.e. our own atoms), RATHER than an ever present interaction based on this 5:1 abundance over what we can see, albeit mostly a gravitational interaction?

4. Is it not the denser matter (by virtue of electromagnetic bonding and interaction), and slower moving matter that would accumulate at Earth's core in contrast to what Prof. Rampino says, while the intrinsically faster moving and the less dense (by virtue of interacting only gravitationally and not electromagnetically) that will accumulate at Earth's surface and atmosphere from the time of its birth and during its galactic voyage?

5. From the foregoing, since dark matter was an unknown participant in the Earth-surface experimental findings that formed the basis of our relativity theories of time and space during Einstein's ear, now that we know that dark matter could have been interfering with Physics' DNA, is it not appropriate that we intervene and stop the Monster creating process that we now behold in the form of 'being in two places at once', 'traveling to the past', 'traveling to the future', 'being dead and alive at the same time', 'twin paradox', 'grandfather paradox', 'contracting lengths', 'dilating time', 'photon existence paradox', etc? Or do we continue watching this horror movie and do nothing?

Regards,

Akinbo

Akinbo,

Glad you like it, too. The likes of you and I however seem too niave to many with the accume to discuss and mathematically analyse the phenomenon, to expend their expertise on it. But I would hope that Zeeya would see fit to engage their interest and expertise by making this a Blog Topic.

Zeeya,

Please consider Ms. Loi's accomplishment as topic for a new Blog. Here, after decades of theorizing, both in QM and classically, prediction has been confirmed. The tubular structures give a better and more easily accessible and measurable experimental paradigm than the similar phenomenon at extremely high energies observed in solar flare research. Plus it is very provocative of possible theoretical application to the debate as to whether there physically exists a boundary between the Quantum and classical realms. For here we find visually modeled interface between the electromagnetic and the macroscopic molecular reaction in the ionization process, playing out in the formation of isobars in the magnetic field domain frame! At laboratory levels of energy! The whole model of the electron's nondifferentiated polarity, only exhibiting one of the arbitrary operational definitions of *charge*, is on stage. I still like Einstein's modest remark, 'I would just like to know what an electron is.' Must only extreme conditions and high energy be the only dignified areas of foundational research? jrc

Hi John ,

I agree it is really interesting on a number of levels.

Quote:"It is to Cleo's great credit that she not only discovered this but also convinced the rest of the scientific community. As an undergraduate student with no prior background in this, that is an impressive achievement, " said Dr Murphy, also of CAASTRO and the School of Physics at the University of Sydney."

Yes, what a great role model for young physicists.

This interests me: "Ms Loi said the drifting plasma tubes could distort astronomical data, especially satellite-based navigation systems. It may also mean we need to re-evaluate our thinking about how galaxies, stars and clouds of gas behave and what they look like."

So the visible universe could get a makeover : )

Georgina,

Yes, indeed. Yes, indeed.

What you seem to be trying to bridge with definitions of reality through the filter of human perception, might be like being a 'ray' of light encountering the ions fluctuating in a tubular structure. What that might reveal is very tantalizing. :-) jrc

Really hoping for some more comments on this. One thing that sprang to my mind is, do we know the magnetic field lines are rigid as illustrated? I have found that they vary in position as the molten contents of the Earth swirl around; there is westward drift, geomagnetic spikes, field variations at quiet and active periods that are correlated to sun spot activity.The earth's magnetic field an overview, British Geological survey

Then it is likely the movement of the plasma tubes is not just them freely moving of their own accord but tracking the magnetic fluctuations. Perhaps this might be an opportunity for looking at the overlap of seismology (what the Core is doing), study of the Earth's magnetic field itself and what is happening in the ionosphere (the fluctuations ) and astronomy (studying the behaviour of the tubes, the product of both field and solar ionized particles, and the consequence for astronomy and navigation).

John, The analogy doesn't work for me. Perception is not necessary for Image reality output. What is required is EM data emitted or scattered from the surface of objects and the distribution, frequency and intensity of the EM data is the input from which a different output is generated. The reality interface could be a camera or a photographic film it need not be an organism that perceives its output. The output is an amalgamation of information that has taken different amounts of time to arrive and so it contains temporal spread. In contrast to the external environment in which all substantial things are existing at the same time. The plasma tubes might affect very weak signals from space but will have negligible effect on the very strong EM signals from Earth bound objects.

Georgina,

Thanks for clarifying your use of *image* reality. Image being what is generally understood to be an element of human perception, but which you have made more clear as referring to an amalgam of physical interactions which have long had conventional definitions in physical research. The visual image being a consequence of physiology in response to an octave of EMR that in reality is just as 'dark' as the rest of the spectrum.

Your wonder at whether the magnetic field lines have a rigid or discrete physical existence is in fact the very essence of the debate between Quantum and classical mechanics. QM would say 'yes, of course, the value of its intensity only comes into being when a measurement is made'. Classicism argues, 'no, the field is a continuum of smooth variation of intensity and it is only that the local domain of another field in proximity will align with it and those localized domains resulting in such observations as iron filings forming self-organized lines'. Or in Ms. Loi's discovery, the formation of the ion Plasma tubes. And, yes, it does provide a real dynamic laboratory to examine the causal versus discrete nature of wave-particle duality. QM would say there is a physical boundary between the field associated with any particle, and that particle in the molten core of the earth and hence each field *line* is in superposition until observed, and the same for the field associated with any ion in the plasma. Classical would say that no boundary exists between any particle in the molten core and the field which is a physical extension of it, which melds with others in proximity giving rise to the greater aggregate magnetosphere of the earth. The fields of ions in the atmosphere interacting with the magnetosphere. Whichever argument one follows, the huge mathematical problems that become immediately obvious are daunting, and would follow different axioms and methods of measurement of temporal space.

I too, would like to hear from others with advanced knowledge and practice in such disciplines. I think that as the essay contest is near graduating into the post-term of acknowledgement, further elaboration and such, many whom contribute to this forum must by necessity keep their eye on the ball they already have in play. Perhaps in the near future some will find this a convenient and appropriate platform to launch critical analytical inquiry.

Very cordially, jrc :-)

John,

Image is a term used in optics. There is no need for a human observer at the focal point of a lens or combination of lenses for an Image to be formed there. It can be displayed on a screen if desired. The potential to produce that Image when the light is converged is within the environment. It's EM radiation, that I often call potential sensory data because it can be sensory data (whether the sensor is device or organic being). There is no confusion between source object and Image manifestation in optics but that is not so in other areas of physics. Of particular concern for me has been Relativity and its paradoxes, in this regard. Differentiation of what are Source objects and what are emergent manifestations helps in making many temporal paradoxes intuitively understood and not paradoxical. The Grandfather paradox is a bit different but is disallowed as the 'past', that allows non simultaneity of events, is only residual EM sensory data not substantial objects and their interactions that form events.

Georgina,

Okay, I see what you're saying, which in physics as in photography (even pre-digital!) is a given, if you take the classical paradigm. In QM not so, it does and doesn't exist anywhere and everywhere in superposition except at the source and the focal point, if and only if there is an observation made. But rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, I'll wait for the mathematicians to jump in. :-) jrc

But John QM is about states and not objects. All states that the object could be observed in are within the sensory data within the environment, where and how you look together with what is there gives you what you find,(State of Image at focal point.) The source object does not have a singular state in the way that an emergent manifestation does.So disagreeing with you, the Source object is in a superposition of states, which is more obvious for some objects than others. Though the observer can not see them all simultaneously as we see manifestations, Images not substantial objects. A manifestation is formed from a limited subset of data and is only what it is seen to be unlike the object that is the source of everything it could be found to be. It's not true that macroscopic objects have definite fixed states, images of macroscopic objects do.Cups are concave and simultaneously convex, a globe spins clockwise and simultaneously anticlockwise, which state is seen to exist depends upon the relationship of the observer to the sensory data scattered from the objects.

I'm afraid the idea of the space-time continuum makes people think that the visible universe is substantially real when it is a fabrication from received data. What happens to that data prior to receipt affects what we perceive to be there. For me this new research highlights the emergent nature of the visible universe. Taking into account perturbation by the plasma tubes could be like "a new pair of glasses" but does not alter the fact that what results is still a fabricated emergent reality and not what exists -Now out in space.

JRC, Georgina,

May I ask what may be two stupid questions:

1. Are these plasma tubes matter?

2. Are these plasma tubes earth-bound as the earth moves about the Sun and galactically OR are new plasma tubes formed at each location the earth finds itself in its motion?

Regards,

Akinbo

Pls apology for any unintended stupidity.

Georgina,

After several reads of your previous post I agree that on some points we are in disagreement and on others not so much. We do have entirely different vocabularies which is difficult for me. Case in point; "For me this new research highlights the emergent nature of the visible universe". That is a bit confusing to me because as you state it, it has the logical form of a common rhetorical fallacy, that of substitution. Simply because the plasma tubes are not *visible*. Ms. Loi's achievement was to make their predicted existence visible through the use and utilization of proven detector arrays that produce an electrical response that is intentionally modulated to produce an already contrived artificial system of data. Only then is it *data*. And to call what is made visual by technology and designed logic circuits *emergent*, is to endow the procedure of discovery with the attributes of the discovered.

The visible spectrum is only called visible because that octave is processed by our physiology to create a perception of visibility. It's 'just as dark as the rest of it' (jrc).

You are importing a terminology that comes from the mass marketing of untruths in advertising which promotes the misconception that it is *information* which has a physical reality that *crosses* (?!) an electronic junction, and all that geekspeak is a deliberate contrivance by corporate interests with warehouses full of behavioral science majors whom get gross reward for trivializing the language and selling next years must have new gadget! Why not learn the conventions of definition of terms used by physicists? ;( jrc

John, the visible universe is the OUTPUT of data receipt and processing not the invisible potential data in the environment. I agree that fluctuations within the environment are not in themselves data. I usually use the term potential sensory data when referring to signals that subsequently lead to manifestations.When talking about the visible universe in that last post as was referring to the dust clouds etc that Ms. Loi mentioned and how we may have to reconsider their forms.

I am using the term emergent as an adjective, which can apply to coming into being or coming to notice. Both are applicable.I don't think I am endowing any further connotation by use of that word. Image realities -come into being, and are noticed- they do not exist prior to that coming into being.

Yes I agree with you about the visible portion of the spectrum just being EM radiation but it is the processing that allows vision. The visible universe is not just output from the visible range of the spectrum but all frequencies made visible via technology. The visible universe as output of data processing is distinct from the Object universe that is the substantial objects existing -Now in external reality.

Your final paragraph has me baffled. I have tried hard to be precise in what I say and have adapted my language according to the feedback I have received to improve it where necessary. I think perhaps you disliked my use of the term super position.I only used it to try to illustrate the overlap of what is happening at different scales. Re. the spinning globe , prior to the observer reference frame being applied all that can be said of the globe in isolation is that it is spinning. It is the relationship between observer and lets say the object (even though it is really a relationship with the EM radiation in this example) that gives the identified state. So the clockwise or anticlockwise states are equally applicable prior to one orientation of observation being applied. That observer reference frame together with what is in the environment gives a fixed state, emergent manifestation, an Image reality. The manifestation only has the state that is seen. Perhaps I should just say the state of an object is indeterminate prior to Image reality production. The state is not a property of the substantial object in isolation.

Georgina,

After posting I checked a couple times and realized I had sounded ambiguously contemptuous. My apologies, I am contemptuous of the decades of tech promotion which treats Max Born's baby as the physical reality. And it's done for the same reason they put a cheap prize in each box of Cracker Jack, people need something of a real and physical durable good to feel justified on spending money on self gratification. Because durable goods are the only true form of wealth. If *information* were treated as the intangible that it is, there would have been no NASDAC tech bubble, and half the gadgetry sold. The hype and invention of clever new words denigrate the advances made in productivity and scientific discovery aided by computers.

I have recognized that you are approaching hard physics from a highly evolved epistemology that grapples with the puzzle of how it can be that we have perception as we experience it, emerging from a purely existential physical dynamic, and how we can qualify what is or is not a definite element of that physical reality. Your own criteria has an IFF (if and only if) constraint that may or may not be correspondent to other such IFF's such as in complex (math) analysis. But I'm not the one who could or should sort out a concordance of correlation in cross disciplines, that be your turf.

There have been great strides made in recent times in neuroscience and brain sciences, and human sentient consciousness has at long last come into its own as an intense interest in physiological and theoretical research. But its in its infancy. I don't go there much these days, instead began long ago reading the fundamentals and history of physics from an experimentalist cum theoretical curiosity. And you have progressed rapidly into more conventional modes of description.

Patience with me please, I'm an old dog now. But way back when Desmond Morris' 'Naked Ape' was on the coffee tables of polite company as a topical prelude to social intercourse, and on the top of paperback stacks of the off-campus collegiates as a social prelude to sexual intercourse, I was delving into and struggling through the post-doctoral theoretical work in anthropological clinical psychology of Dr. Julian Jaynes 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-cameral Mind'. So hang in there, baby. And as Tom Ray has said in essence, the profusion of insignificant papers produced by the publish or perish gift economy of academia swamps the few achievements of real enduring merit. We all would hope to have at least one original thought, and pursue it to some new fundamental understanding. On! through the fog! jrc

Akinbo,

Sorry for the lag time.

No. 1: Yes, ions are matter.

No. 2: Yes, the ions cluster in the tubular structures which are embedded in the atmosphere, which itself is within the electrical domain of the ionosphere. And they are a product of atmospheric molecules having their valence bonds broken by high energy particle collisions and electromagnetic radiation, in a continual flux of molecular breakage and isotope ionization along with recombinant reactions. It's a cotillion waltz, in high fashion.

The interesting feature, apart from the electrical disturbance to signal traffic whether broadcast or naturally occurring EMR detection from cosmic or any extraterrestrial source, is that they differentiate along magnetic field force lines. But how any such force *line* becomes distinct and evolves as the earth rotates like Newton's Bucket stirring the aggregate molten iron rich core and less viscous regions with other elemental constituents having high magnetic moment, is not only so extraordinarily complex as to be approachable only by probabilities in large numbers, but also begs the question of whether there is a boundary at all between any assumed line of force.

I'd like to get some direction towards literature on the research Cleo Loi worked from. How 'bout you? jrc

Hi John, Akinbo,

John thank you for your replies, I do appreciate you having taken the time. I am glad I have clarified what I have been doing but am also sorry for sidetracking this discussion spot. Thanks for the questions Akinbo.

There is a paper published in Geophysical research letters " Real-time imaging of density ducts between the plasmasphere and ionosphere":25 May 2015 but that doesn't seem to be freely accessible. So to see the reference list someone would need access to that Journal. I think to find out the background might take a bit of searching. I have just come across " An Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Magnetohydrodynamics" By Marcel Goossens, which talks about magnetic flux tubes in chapter 4 but how enlightening regarding this new work I don't know.

Hi JRC,

Actually I cannot claim any expertise on plasma physics and may not be the best person to point to the more useful literature. I see Georgina has identified one. My interest lies mainly in the fundamentals. What exactly is a line of force? Is it a stream of particles, a sign that space can be active or a linear substance? How do ions interact at a distance without being in direct contact? I have my opinion on the matter but this may not be relevant to the topic.

Akinbo

Georgina and Akinbo,

Thanks for the references, Georigina, I had perused the British Geo link and it goes to the Q vs. C question of:

Akinbo,

Good question if you are in for the long haul, because QM and Classical clash over what a field of any sort might be. I'll address the classical.

If we hypothesize a single material particle exhibiting a field which operates continuously from an electrical conductivity through a magnetic domain, both of which characteristic phenomenon each operate with a polarity in equal and opposite measure, and embedded in a unidirectional gravitational domain, all of those characteristic effects operating in accord with inverse square law; we might conclude as Faraday did that our hypothesis resolves from that full volume of field being a physical extension of the particle in a real material sense. That is the Unified Field famously sought by Einstein and many others.

Given that hypothesis, there is no physical boundary between the intensity at any chosen point in the field and a greater or lesser intensity at another chosen point. It changes as a smooth variation in a continuous physical function. So a line of force is very much like an isobar on the weather map, it is a continuous line of demarcation of a chosen measured value of intensity of whichever characteristic force effect is being plotted. But that can only be theoretical due to our limitations on experimental verification. We can not at the present, isolate and measure a single material particle.

In aggregate, the classical paradigm still lacks a rationale and conceptual rendering of how those distinct characteristic force effects can meld together and expand into a volume of an inertial frame envelope producing the ionosphere and magnetosphere and gravitational domain, while remaining discretely interactive with free particles and EMR. On the short haul, that is such a load that it was dropped in favor of the ad hoc, dice & slice methodology of Quantum Mechanics.

So in the whole earth catalog of aggregate effects, we might say that a magnetic line of force is an isobar of aggregate effect intensity as arbitrarily measured, and that spikes of intensity variation are anomalies of concentrations of particulate matter having a range of high magnetic moment inherent to a variety of isotopes.

I hope that doesn't muddy the waters too much, but its the best of my understanding in brief. jrc

Georgina,

I know a woman whom all called 'Georgi' since high school, and her husband was an acquaintance also. Both are unpretentious, self-reliant, hard working and conscientious. Back then there was a Pop song 'Georgi Girl' that was light, lively and encouraging of young women to become all that they were capable being and wanting. So If I slip and address you in a presumed familiarity, treat it as a form of endearment.

My thanks for the references are in an aside to Akinbo, but beyond that as to your criteria which I noted has an IFF quality to it, and as might be relevant to your ponderings of SR; complex analysis is called *complex* because it employs imaginary (only by definition in mathspeak) numbers but can be applied to your illustration of the observer dependence in relation to the aspect of the cup. I prefer 'illustration' to analogy because correctly an analogy means a 1 to 1 correspondence, an analog. Here goes;

Say you cut an orange in half, three times at mutual right angles. Now you have 8 equal segments of a sphere. Stuck back together, if you want to measure from one octant into another octant, you have to correlate the point in each octant to its respective x,y,z axes. But there is nothing upside-down and backwards to the temporal spatial relationship between those two points like you would find if the line of sight went through a lens at midpoint. So the non-commutative algebra of Quaternions was devised to say if you designate your start of measure in octant 'A' then in the other octant what would be displaced from the x axis is transformed to a displacement off one of the others depending on which direction you rotate your measurement scheme, and if its in an octant that your scheme designates as in the opposite hemisphere, then it operates as a negative (imaginary number) and that prescribed axis that would otherwise be x is now z but = 'i'. Yeah, I know. There's got to be a better way. Especially if your proportion of measurement is a quotient because while you can multiply by zero and only need 4 transforms, you can't divide by zero and so need 8 transforms known as Octonions or 'division rings'. But! it's okay! because all you have to do is pick your intial point and that sets which ring, or 4x4 matrix chart, you use throughout all computations. Those axis transforms correlate to an * if and only if * criteria from the initial point of observation.

But so do your definitions of qualitative designated reality. Light intersecting light suffers no interference and doesn't slow it down, but the refractive index of a medium through which it may or may not pass, does. What emerges from your criteria is (at first blush) consistent with the physics of 'just because we don't observe the light bouncing off it due to our distance or position, doesn't mean it's not physically part of the visible universe'.

Glass is silicon and is transparent to light, but the spark plug wires in your car are actually not wire at all, but long strands of silicon insulated by spongy silicon. And so opague that the high voltage electromagnetic pulse carried by the strand is shielded sufficiently by the molecular arrangement in the insulation sheath that in all likelihood the low millivoltage from the engine control computer that operates the 'step' motor of the idle air control valve is carried in a wiring harness that rubs up against the distributor or plug wires. IFF. :-) jrc