Starship Asterisk*

by **dougettinger** » Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:27 am

So you are saying that the structures observed after a supernova have extremely low densities comparable to low density molecular clouds ?

What is postulated the distance from the explosion when re-ionization of the plasmas takes place ? When protons and electrons re-combine ?

Are you aware that the most massive stars have several expulsions of material almost comparable in power prior to the final supernova explosion ?

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

by **Chris Peterson** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 9:32 pm

dougettinger wrote:I am very curious about the plasmas created in the aftermath of supernova explosions. I would think that their electromagnetic nature would overpower or be more significant than the gravity forces of the source star for a certain amount of time.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. For the most part, neither factor is significant. The plasma clouds that make up supernova remnants are very diffuse, which means neither gravity nor electrical currents are significant. In some cases there are residual magnetic and maybe electrical fields strong enough to create or maintain some structure, but mostly what we see is just the product of Newton's First Law: the material was set in motion at the moment of the supernova (and to be sure, electromagnetic fields are extremely important in defining that initial structure), and we see it as it moves outward on its original course, and we see denser bits diffuse into less dense regions. None of this is related to gravity or electromagnetic effects.

by **dougettinger** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 7:28 pm

I have always been talking about the ejecta from the explosion; sorry, my beginning statement was confusing.

In the final explosion of which there supposely are a series in Type II supernovae, iron plasma from the final iron shell is ejected possibly clumping, spinning, moving faster, and forming dipole electromagnets. These magnet-like orbs could then possibly collect other plasmas that it passes through by forming multiple disks of materials behind its main shock wave. Yes, there is no evidence. But many times, one first needs an idea before you know what to look for. This is only an idea, not a full blown hypothesis.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

by **Beta** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 6:29 pm

You said:

dougettinger wrote:I would think that their electromagnetic nature would overpower or be more significant than the gravity forces of the source star for a certain amount of time...

(boldface mine)

Now you've dropped that and you're talking about something else:

dougettinger wrote: In addition, the fast moving plasmas of the ejected material could possibly do such things as create their own "pinching" and multiple collapsing disks since they possess electric current and resulting magnetic properties.

Yeah, I suppose they might pinch a little (I don't know what "multiple collapsing disks" means). If they pinched a lot I'd be surprised, but I'm open to EVIDENCE.

by **dougettinger** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 5:53 pm

Beta wrote:
dougettinger wrote:I would think that their electromagnetic nature would overpower or be more significant than the gravity forces of the source star for a certain amount of time...
What does that mean? Do you mean that electromagnetic forces would hold the star together for a while after core collapse? Plasmas don't generally compress themselves into balls like that.

I was referring to the materials ejected in the explosion and traveling behind the intial shock wave. They should have no affect on the core collapse, but should be affected by the gravity field of the resulting core collapse. In addition, the fast moving plasmas of the ejected material could possibly do such things as create their own "pinching" and multiple collapsing disks since they possess electric current and resulting magnetic properties.

I am certainly giving gravity its due, but electromagnetic effects certainly do exist. By discussing EM, I am certainly not dismissing gravity and present theories of star formation.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA

by **bystander** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 4:01 pm

dougettinger wrote:I appreciated the discussion by JJohnson about cosmic plasma who did not address the subject plasma. Perhaps he may have some comments.

No discussions on Plasma Cosmology allowed.

http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... 08#p123308

by **Beta** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:53 pm

dougettinger wrote:I would think that their electromagnetic nature would overpower or be more significant than the gravity forces of the source star for a certain amount of time...

What does that mean? Do you mean that electromagnetic forces would hold the star together for a while after core collapse? Plasmas don't generally compress themselves into balls like that.

by **dougettinger** » Wed Jun 09, 2010 3:07 pm

I am very curious about the plasmas created in the aftermath of supernova explosions. I would think that their electromagnetic nature would overpower or be more significant than the gravity forces of the source star for a certain amount of time. Does anybody have any idea what this amount of time would be ? How does this EM energy lose its affect over time and succumb to the forces of gravity ? SN 1987 A certainly showed characteristics over time that could not be entirely explained by the affect of gravity.

I appreciated the discussion by JJohnson about cosmic plasma who did not address the subject plasma. Perhaps he may have some comments.

Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, Pa

Starship Asterisk*

Plasma created in supernova explosions

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Re: Plasma created in supernova explosions

Plasma created in supernova explosions