I’m making the prediction that HH30 (and other stellar jet systems) are
actually going through magnetic dipole reversal or dipole excursion
sequences. I understand that searching for Faraday Rotations can
reveal the orientation of the field. Is there any one out there that
can begin making observations to determine the magnetic field
orientation of HH30?
As is well known, the Sun goes through a dipole reversal sequence
approximately every eleven (11) years. I am suggesting a large scale
primitive current loop model for stellar jets systems and for stars in
general. The model is straightforward and only requires the pi/2
radian rotation of the current direction everywhere in a current loop
system. Starting with a toroidal current loop we see that a dipole
magnetic field is produced. By means of a pi/2 radian rotation of the
current direction at every point on the loop (all in the same direction
as clockwise, for example) a toroidal current structure makes the
transition to the poloidal current mode. Current flow in a poloidal
current structure would be described as a donut with the current
direction at the outer equator pointing or converging toward the donut
hole. For a torus structure with the minor radius slightly less than
the major radius we see that the current density rises as the inner
equator is approached and begins to diverge past the inner equator to
spread out evenly at the outer equator. Of course, during the poloidal
current mode takeing the place of what previously was a large scale
inner current loop is now a large scale magnetic flux loop.
During the toroidal current mode the structure displays magnetic dipole
features and during the poloidal current mode it would display electric
dipole features (current going into the North pole and out the South
pole, for example).
Based upon this model we should see the ejection of strongly positively
charged masses along one pole and the ejection of strongly negative
masses along the other.
Is there a means to discern between ejecta of stellar jets to determine
if the ejected material has a charge bias emerging from either pole?
Examining the NASA photos of HH30 which were taken 11 months apart at:
http://www.aip.de/~cfendt/hh30.html
shows the material being ejected to the right as being more luminous
than blobs ejected to the left.
Part of the legend for this previously embargoed photo states:
"The presence of the blobs suggests that the star formation process is
fitful and episodic, as chunks of material fall onto the newborn star."
Such a statement seems somewhat of a contrived interpretation of the
operation of this stellar jet and imposes ideas which are popular but
which are not at all in evidence. On the other hand, our own star,
the Sun, does go through regular dipole reversal sequences and it isn’t
taking things for a big stretch to suggest that a similar field
reversal process is precisely what is going on with HH30 since the
spacing of the ejecta is quite regular. But HH30, which seems to eject
brighter and more massive blobs to the right may only be going through
dipole excursion events where the current direction changes to poloidal
and then instead of making another pi/2 radian rotation in the same
direction perhaps only rotates back in the opposite direction.
Now I stated above that "The model is straightforward and only requires
the pi/2 radian rotation of the current direction everywhere in a
current loop system." One might say I am begging the question here
about the current direction rotation process itself and I admit that I
am but only because I am suggesting that current direction rotations
are ubiguitous in the universe and is precisely the mechanism which can
account for quite a bit of astrophysical phenomenon. I’m not
suggesting that a magical rotation appear in order to make this all
look right but rather that we have evidence of such rotations already
and that we have lacked both the recognition of the phenomenon and
because of that then also a precise description or mathematical
treatment of the rotation of the current direction is also lacking.
Further, it may be that it must remain lacking as long as current is
only interpreted as a scalar even though admittedly must also have a
direction (at any point of evaluation). The two (current magnitude and
current direction) are generally treated separately but I would suggest
that if we treat current as a vector then we can surmise that Del X I =
partial P/partial t. Where I is current (boldfaced to indicate a
vector), P is Poynting vector (E X H) and represents the instantaneous
power density measured in watts per m^2. The integration of the
Poynting vector over a closed surface yields the total power crossing
the surface in an outward sense. If we shrink the surface area by
suggesting a rise in current density is equivalent to a current pinch
then we still get power crossing in an outward sense but that outward
sense for a positive curvature of a surface is divergent and we are
ignoring the rapid rise in vector potential density across the same
surface. So we could suggest that it could be written Del X I =
partial A(sub d)/partial t where A(sub d) is electromagnetic vector
potential density. This is because alternatively we see that wherever
there is a current density increase via a current pinch effect that
there also must be a volume charge density increase and that implies a
surface charge density increase so that we see a rise in E. Since
E=-DelV-(partial A)/partial t and since partial E/partial t implies a
rotation of magnetic field intensity in Ampere’s per meter there is
implied the rotation of the current’s direction (or the current’s
vector) around the axis of the vector potential.
We also see that for a poloidal current ring structure that we obtain
an interior toroidal magnetic flux loop. The same considerations must
apply to this flux loop as applied to the current loop since it can be
thought of as a magnetic flux ‘current’. Again then, we can write Del
X phi= partial P/partial t or Del X phi = partial A(sub d)/partial t
using similar arguments,
Perhaps the reason that we have failed to see these things in the past
is because of the way in which we have chosen to mathematically
represent the concept of the motion of charged particles. Because of
this we have perhaps been blinded with respect to the rotational
tendency of the current vector or flux vector when there is a rise in
current density or flux density. But whatever the reason, the rotation
of the current direction is a reality which we can no longer afford to
ignore.
Charles Cagle
–