Magnetic field of celestial bodies

CELESTIAL BODY MAGNETISM, and absurdities of modern physics

Background and actual explanation

The earliest certified description of compass use in navigation was published by Alexander Neckham in 1180, but ferromagnetism in rocks and Earth’s intrinsic magnetic field has been familiar phenomena from earlier time.
Up to 1600, it was believed that magnetism is caused by attraction exerted by Polaris, the North Star, on magnets and consequently they orientate toward a certain direction related to this particular star. Gilbert experiments with a spherical lodestone and a magnetic needle have proved that Earth behaves as a giant magnet and North Star has no influence over magnets.
Today a great deal is known about geomagnetism, and an equally amount is still beyond our grasp.
The big problem regarding how Earth magnetic field is generated has only a partial solution.
Initially it was accepted that originating iron in earth nucleus can explain its magnetic comportment. The idea proves to be false because iron losses magnetic properties at about 1400 C and inside Earth the temperature reaches 5000 C. Lower temperature are present only in the top 50 km of Earth crust and this top layer part is not able to generate a magnetic field by itself.
One of the basic principles of actual physics is that all magnetic fields arise from electric currents.
When a coil of wire that is free to rotate is placed in a magnetic field, due to the interaction between external magnetic field and magnetic field created by electric current, the coil will rotate. This is in short the working principle of electric motors.
There is also a reciprocal effect when a wire or other conductor of electricity is subjected to a changing magnetic field and in this case an electric current is induced into it; this is the principle of working for electric generators.
It can be imagined a combination between an electric motor and an electric generator in order to explain the magnetism of Earth and other cosmic bodies. At first glance it appears that the combination will go on forever, once we have given it an initial push, with the generator supplying power to the motor, which in turn rotates the generator to produce more power. Unfortunately this cannot actually occur because of inevitable presence of friction, resistance and other factors.
In essence most theories of Earth magnetisms invoke a mechanism of this kind, in which there is a coupling between mechanical, electrical and magnetically phenomena. The required auxiliary energy is supplied by the solid central core in the form of heat, which then produces convective motions in the liquid. There is no agreement on the manner in which the heat itself is produced in the Earth's core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth's crust. The flows are very slow, and the energy involved is just a tiny part of the total heat energy contained in the core.
It was Joseph Larmor, who proposed in 1919, that ,,convection currents of conducting material in the Earth’s core are responsible for the slowly varying magnetic dipole we observe at and above Earth's surface. He initially proposed this as an explanation for the Sun’s magnetic field, but eventually it was extended to the Earth as well.
Extracts from his presentation ,,How could a rotating body such as the Sun become a magnet?”:
...internal motion induces an electrical field acting on the moving matter...
if a conducting path ... happens to be open an electric current will flow round it, which may in turn increase the inducing magnetic field.
In this way, it is possible for the internal cyclic motion to act after the manner of a self-exciting dynamo and maintain a permanent magnetic field from insignificant beginnings at the expense of some of the energy of the internal circulation.
...earth magnetic field ... it would require fluidity and residual circulation in deepseated regions.
So the molten metal is believed to be circulating. By moving through the existing magnetic field, it creates a system of electric currents, spread out through the core, somewhat like Faraday's disk dynamo.
There are a lot of scientific papers, some of them available online, which try to frame this subject and it seems the topic is not as simple as it appears at a first look.
It is important to highlight that all these papers are based on Maxwell equation combined with mechanics of fluids.
Besides theoretical treatments, in the latest years, some experiments were performed in order to simulate at small scale what’s happen in a celestial body core.
It is worth to remind here two references, found in internet, related to the famous Riga experiment.
1. Magnetic turbulence in the Riga dynamo experiment Gailitis, A.; Lielausis, O.; Platacis, E.; Gerbeth, G.; Stefani, F.
Abstract: The Riga dynamo experiment demonstrates that a strong enough and appropriately directed flow of a fluid electroconductor generates a magnetic field very similar as the Earth and other celestial bodies do. Two 100 kW motors are driving a propeller which forces molten sodium to circulate inside an annular vessel, a part of which is located in the basement of the sodium lab. The sodium flow is directed by two thin coaxial electroconducting cylindrical partition walls. In the central channel sodium is swirling down from the propeller. In the coaxial counter-flow channel the flow is raising straight up to the propeller. In an outer part of the vessel the sodium is at rest, it serves only for better electric boundary conditions. Depending on sodium temperature at a propeller speed of 1800-2000 rpm (flow-rate about 0.6 qm/s) the zero state for the magnetic field is becoming unstable and a field appears seemingly from nothing. The magnetic field values are recovered from coil voltage records by means of Fast Fourier processing. For finer spectral resolution two small coils were inserted alternately in a narrow channel tip penetrating deep inside the central flow. Examples for recorded signals and FFT processed fields are presented. Workshop: Modelling MHD Turbulence: Application to Planetary and Stellar Dynamos, 27.-30.06.2006, Boulder, United States.

2. Molten Metal Magnet; http://focus.aps.org/story/v19/st3; 30 January 2007
A tank of stirred liquid sodium generates a magnetic field even though it's highly turbulent−a condition closer to real dynamos in planets, stars, and galaxies, but harder to simulate in the lab.
The Earth generates a magnetic field from the flow of molten metal in its core. Lab experiments have generated fields in a similar way, and in the 26 January Physical Review Letters, researchers report that they can create the self−sustaining magnetic field even when the flow is highly turbulent. The new experiment is a more realistic simulation of Earth's dynamo than previous experiments because the fluid flows freely in a large tank instead of being channeled into prescribed patterns with baffles or tubes. The new design should help researchers better understand the factors that give rise to magnetic fields in planets and stars.
It's easy to create a magnetic field by using a battery to force an electric current through a loop of wire. But Earth's core, a rotating mix of iron and nickel with internal flows driven by the passage of heat, has no battery and no wires. Instead, it creates magnetism by means of self−sustaining feedback. Liquid metal moving through a magnetic field generates a current, similar to that induced in the moving coil of an electric generator. That current in turn generates the magnetic field. This "self−generation" mechanism can dramatically amplify the small, random fields that always exist in magnetic materials. To do this, though, the flow must be both complex, mixing up the longitudinal and latitudinal directions, and rapid, "tangling up" magnetic field lines faster than they can untangle..........
.......

Why the actual explanation is a monument of absurdity...

More then 400 years of discussion and we’re still not sure what creates the Earth’s magnetic field, and thus the magnetosphere, despite the importance of these topics for science and even for life protection.
The present text tries to raise some ,,common sense” questions and of course a real science must give a clear answer to these questions.

Q.1. Are the compositions of Earth crust and lithosphere consistent with actual orthodox theory, when their modifications during different geological times are analysed?

Actual geophysics and geochemistry admit that outer core and lower mantle present totally different chemical compositions. Outer core is formed by liquid metals and lower mantle, crust and lithosphere are formed by silicates as indicated in fig. 1.
If a strong circulation of metal in outer core is absolutely necessary in order to explain the magnetism of Earth planet, this circulation raises other problem to chemical composition of mantle, crust and lithosphere.
The continuous stirring of boiling iron and nickel metals from outer core must ,,dissolve” in a continuous manner the top part of solid silicates layers.

Figure 1. Transversal section through Earth

If we admit that Earth was formed around 4 milliards of terrestrial years ago, there should be a significant difference between chemical composition of Earth crust and lithosphere at different geologic times.
As is observed in fig. 1, part of Earth crust subdue and melts inside lower mantle, in certain specific zone on the Earth. Other molten material replenish the subdue material and of course this molten material must have a higher concentrations of metals. As consequence, if we admit that an initial Earth had a core of metals and a mantle and crust formed by silicates, there must be a correlation between the increase of metal concentration in Earth crust and the age of Earth. After 4,5 milliards of years, there must be a minimum of 25 % percent of pure metals in lithosphere and planet crust....
Geological studies, does not confirm this mechanism and, during geological times, only a change from an initial silicate crust toward another silicate crust is counted.
There is no consistent explanation for the existence of a liquid silicate layer (lower mantle) over a layer of molten metals (outer core) separated due to their density.
A simple experiment can be organised in order to clarify this aspect. As is observed in fig. 6, a layer of silicate covers a layer of silicates.

Figure 6. Layer separation experiment 

Using a heating source with a small but continuous gradient of temperature, both metal and silicate layers are molten. During this melting at these high temperatures (greater then 2500 K), a liquid solution forms and the boundary between silicate layer and metal layer disappears as in fig. 7.

Figure 7. Absence of layer separation during melting

If at this point, the heating source is removed, and according to actual orthodox theory at cooling a separation of these materials based on their density must be observed and final state should be quite identical with initial state.
But, in reality, when this liquid solution cools and solidifies, a vitreous material is obtained and there is no separation based on gradient density. Consequently actual geochemistry and geophysics is not able to explain in a consistent way the structure and properties of Earth crust. For other planets, the situation is completely out of control and a lot of ,,reference scientific texts” instead of tackling with science, tackle with science fiction.
In proposed theory it is necessary to be revised the whole composition of celestial bodies’ chemical composition and the correlation with their aggregation state. It is not possible for molten silicate to remain as a separate layer on the top of liquid metal layer during geological times.

Q.2. Does an Earth rotational motion is compatible with the existence of two layer separated by density in the internal Earth structure?

It is well known the Earth movement of spin, which generate the succession of day and nights on a certain point of Earth surface and another orbital motion around Sun which generates the succession of seasons. I don’t think actual science dare to revise this clear and accepted reality.
On the other part well documented studies about mechanic of fluids show that a mixture of fluids with different densities separates during a rotational motion. The centrifugal force acts to separate various components of a mixture and consequently more-dense components of the mixture migrate away from the axis of rotation, while less-dense components migrate toward the axis as in fig. 8.
The centrifugal force on a particle that is constrained to rotate in a circular path is given by Fc = mrω² where Fc is the centrifugal force acting on the particle to maintain it in the circular path, r is the radius of the path, m is the mass of the particle, and ω is the angular velocity of the particle.
Or, since ω = v/r, where v is the tangential velocity of the particle Fc = (mv2)/r.

The centrifugal force depends upon the radius and speed of rotation and upon the mass of the particle. If the radius and the speed of rotation are fixed, then the controlling factor is the weight of the particle so that the heavier the particle the greater is the centrifugal force acting on it. Consequently, if two liquids, one of which is twice as dense as the other, are placed in a bowl and the bowl is rotated about a vertical axis at high speed, the centrifugal force per unit volume will be twice as great for the heavier liquid as for the lighter. The heavy liquid (ρ2) will therefore move to occupy the periphery of the bowl and it will displace the lighter liquid (ρ1) towards the centre. This is the principle of the centrifugal liquid separator and is used in industry to separate cream from milk. It is not necessary a high math treatment for the up presented concepts. Only a visit to a farm will convince the actual theoreticiens about the reality of these things.

Figure 8 Liquid separation in a centrifuge
Having these concepts clear explained it is very strange what’s happen inside Earth. As far there is a rotation motion and this movement can be assimilated with a movement into a centrifuge, it is impossible to have actual distribution of densities (fig. 9) for crust, lithosphere, mantle and outer and inner core. In fact the distribution of densities must be completely opposite to actual accepted one.

Figure 9. Actual densities distributions inside Earth

In proposed theory, there are no tremendous differences between chemical compositions of core, mantle and lithosphere. Of course, the proposed theory rule out the actual metallic composition of inner and outer core. 

Q3. What is in fact the chemical composition of Earth core?

Actual geophysics accepts that Earth is formed by a thin crust of solid silicates floating on a core of molten metalic material.
Active volcanoes present a natural property to pomp part of liquid material found under the silicate crust toward surface.
It is very strange that despite of large spread of volcanism phenomenon on the Earth surface, no scientist has ever thought to make a correlation between chemical composition of lava and chemical composition of internal Earth layers. Admitting as real the existence of an internal Earth core formed by Ni and Fe, the chemical composition of volcanic lava appears as one of the strangest phenomena in physical chemistry.
The lava carried out by an active volcano must reflect the composition of internal core; this means chemical composition of this lava must contain a high percentage of molten metals. The reality is completely different and, in all cases, ejected lava from active volcanoes does not contain molten metals, but only silicates. Of course, it is very strange how modern science, in spite geochemistry, is not able to make a difference between molten salts and molten metals. Maybe a visit is necessary to be organized, near an active volcano, for those theoreticians dealing with these problems in order to learn something about metals and salts.
At this point it is interesting to see if an experiment can be organised in order to simulate at laboratory level the situation encountered at level of Earth planet. Let’s suppose the arrangement from fig. 10 where a layer of silicates cover a layer of a metal (iron or nickel). The heater is situated under the metal layer and the heating of silicate layer is made in an indirect way by metal layer.

Figure 10. Experiment arrangement

In case of a powerful heating source, and having in mind that metal is a good thermal conductor, the heat will melt first this metal layer. If the heating continue, the metal will start to boil under the silicate crust. Of course, in time, the heat will start to melt the silicate layer too. At a certain moment of time, depending on the thick of silicate layer, the pressure generated by boiling metal will splash the silicate layer and the internal molten material will reverse through these generated cracks.
In order to be more close to the real situation encountered in real situation, a hole is made into the silicate layer as in fig. 11, and the experiment is repeated.

Figure 11. Variant of experiment

In this case, when metal starts to boil under the silicate layer, the pressure does not accumulate under the silicate crust. The molten metal finds a way to be ejected when the pressure starts to accumulate in the system (fig. 12). In this case, the ejected material must be more then 80% molten metal and only traces of silicate. Of course, the flow of molten metal through silicate whole, will produce a slow and continuous erosion of hole walls and ejected material will contain a certain percent of silicates.

Figure 12. Ejected material in variant experiment

Another variant of this experiment, easy to be replicate in practice, supposes the existence of an accumulation chamber inside silicate layer as in fig. 13. This can be performed very easily with actual techniques.

Figure 13. Accumulation chamber as variant of experiment

In this case, when metal starts to boils and expands, it will fill in firstly the accumulation chamber. The pressure will accumulate as the heating continue, and the silicate layer will crack close to this silicate layer (fig. 14), and will eject both silicates materials and molten metals.

Figure 14. Ejected material in case of accumulation chamber

As is observed, in all these experiments, the composition of ejected material are heavily dependent on composition of internal layer this means metallic one. The top layer (the silicate) does not affect in a significant manner the chemical composition of ejected material.
These simple experiments throw a new perspective of composition of Earth core and about volcanism.
In proposed theory, the internal core of Earth is formed by silicates and not by pure metals.

Q3. Can we consider that a radioactivity phenomenon supplies the Earth core with energy in order to ensure the energetic balance for actual dynamos mechanism?

Dynamo theory needs a supplementary source of energy in order to power the dynamo  and to balance the losses in the system. Actual theoreticians in absence of a valid answer to this problem have supposed that radioactive materials exist in the Earth core. There is no further detailed analysis of quantity and what types of radioactive materials are present in Earth core.
In fact as will be analysed here, instead of helping solving the problem, this hypothetical source of energy causes more problems to actual  accepted explanation.
It is not clear where are localised these radioactive materials inside Earth core. Is it situated inside solid core or inside outer core, or maybe in the lower mantle? At a temperature of thousands of degrees, even this radioactive material must be in liquid state. As consequence, this radioactive material during geological times must be uniformly distributed inside magnetic magma.
Therefore when this magma is ejected outside by active volcanoes, a strong radioactivity must be counted around volcanic cones.
Despite this prediction, no unusual radioactivity was ever counted near active volcanoes. Maybe actual theoreticians must be reconverted and have to learn what are the significances of simple measurements in physics and how these data are to be interpreted.
In proposed theory, there isn’t necessary for a supplementary source of energy in order to explain the magnetism of celestial bodies.

Q4. How induction law works for dynamo experiment?

How the earth and other celestial bodies produce their magnetic field is a longstanding puzzle. It is accepted by actual physics that a charge movement represent an electric current and around an electric current a magnetic field appear.
"Dynamo theory", first suggested by Joseph Larmor in 1919, is now believed to be the origin of the earth's magnetic field. In this dynamo mechanism, fluid motion in the Earth's outer core moves conducting material across an already existing, weak magnetic field and generates an electric current. The electric current also produces magnetic field, so the total magnetic field is growing. Finally the growth is balanced by ohmic decay.
But as will be presented here, there is a tremendous difference between a Faraday’s dynamo and a rotational motion in Riga experiment or in a celestial body.
In case of a Faraday’s dynamo (fig. 15), a part of a conducting metallic plate rotates through a fixed magnetic field. As consequence of the changing magnetic flux through a part of metallic disc, an electric current is induced into external circuit.
This is a conducting disk with sliding contacts at the axle and rim, which is rotated in a magnetic field normal to the plane of the disc. If the magnetic field is into the page, and the disc rotates clockwise, then the rim becomes positive relative to the axle.

Figure 15. Faraday’s dynamo

In case, the entire metallic disc is situated in magnetic field like in fig. 16, no electric current must appears in external circuit. This is because no variation of magnetic flux can be registered. For the actual physics it is very strange why in this case an electric current appears too. In fact this is not the only experiment which contradicts actual accepted explanation for electromagnetic induction and in a previous posted message another cut off experiment was described at this link:

to be added 

Further the classical electromagnetism renounced to give a solution to another controversial experiment: unipolar induction. A lot of fringe explanations were proposed, but none has been able to fix the situation. A clear explanation of unipolar induction will be provided in the books related to magneticity.

Figure 16 Variant of faradays dynamo

In case of a celestial body and in particular for Earth planet, all the time the ,,entire disc” or the ,,entire conducting material” is placed in a uniform, ,,external magnetic field”. Without taken into discussion the origin of this ,,external magnetic field”, it can be observed that no variation of magnetic flux is registered inside planet core, and in this case, no electric current must circulate inside planet core too.
On the other hand, even a lay man can observe that no connection between Riga experiment and Faraday’s dynamo can ever exist. Riga experiments do not suppose the existence of ,,an external magnetic field”. In this latest case, a ,,rotational movement” of a molten metal generate a magnetic field.
In proposed theory, there is a circulation of neutral matter inside Earth or other celestial core, but this matter movement do not generate an electric current inside planet core.

Q5. Can a charge movement inside Earth core reinforce its magnetic field?

A second problem which worth to be analysed by comparison regards the type of charge and their movement in case of a celestial body and in case of Faraday dynamo.
As was up presented, in case of Faraday dynamo, only the electrons have the possibility to move in circuit and to generate an electric current.
On the other part, in case of a celestial body, both electrons and nuclei have the possibility to move in ,,external magnetic field”. Actual quantum theory accepts that electrons are free to move in case of a metallic bond. But in case of a molten metal, atomic nuclei do not keep a fixed position like in case of solid metals. As far electrons and nuclei have opposite electric charges, the magnetic field, more precisely Lorenz force act differently on them.
Motion of a charged particle in magnetic field is characterized by the change in the direction of motion. It is expected also as magnetic field is capable of only changing direction of motion.
The force is given by the cross product between v and B,

The direction of F is perpendicular to the plane of v and B and the magnitude of F is

where θ is the angle between the direction of the field and the particle’s velocity.

Figure 17 Magnetic force on a positive charge                               Figure 18 Magnetic force on a negative charge

The direction of F can be determined by the ‘right hand rule’. You point your fingers in the direction of v, then close you hand so that your fingers turn towards B, and your thumb is then in the direction of F.
For negative charges the force is in the opposite direction. Use the right hand rule and then reverse directions (or use a ‘left hand rule’).
These are well known theoretical and experimental facts, which are learned in elementary school. 
What’s happened in case of electrons (negative particles) and nuclei (positive particles) inside Earth?

Let’s consider an equatorial section through Earth and a certain direction for magnetic induction B (B is entering into page), as in fig. 19.

Figure 19 Charges movement inside Earth core 

In fig. 19, it can be observed that, as result of presence of magnetic field, positive charges moves toward axis of rotation (or toward internal solid core) and negatives charges moves toward Earth crust.
In short interval of time, there will be an accumulation of positive charges in the spatial region of earth centre of and an accumulation of electrons on the Earth lithosphere as in fig. 20.

Figure 20 Accumulation of charges movement inside Earth

Can this charge separation ensure auto amplification and persistence of earth magnetic field over long period of time ?

As a result, Lorentz force induces in the molten metal complex movements. All these movements have a detrimental effect on the current efficiency and the specific energy consumption therefore it is impossible that such motion can persist over long interval of time.
Actual geophysics admits that motion of matter through an initial magnetic field creates a current, which creates its own magnetic field, reinforcing the original magnetic field.
The up presented demonstration using knowledge from low level school can rule out the concept of reinforcing magnetic field.
In case of a celestial body, and in particular case of Earth, it is not clear how a movement of matter inside Earth generate first and electric current and after that a increasing magnetic field. No circuit able to reinforce the initial effect of and electric current was ever built. In fact this is the first perpetuum mobile accepted in science in absence of a coherent explanation.

 In practice, no experiment performed to date has been able to show that a magnetic field can be strengthened (increased) from a less intense because, as a general rule, always induced currents oppose the initial magnetic flux. Baron Munchausen stories who was capable of pulling out of hair  from a well is more reliable than modern science stories.

The new theory proposes a rational explanation for the magnetic fields of celestial bodies. In short, the motion of neutral matter, under certain conditions, generates a magnetic field, in absence of an electric current. Maxwell equations already eliminated on other previous experiments are again inconsistent with experimental reality. It should be emphasized again the non-equivalence of magnetic and electric phenomena in  proposed theory.