INTERSTELLAR FILAMENTS

2 Threads Combined: Stars & Planets Form from Filaments

{Charles & EU both theorize that stars and planets form/ed from interstellar filaments.}

http://herschel.esac.esa.int/Publ/2012/Grenoble/20-1220_ArzoumanianD_Filaments.pdf

typical width for interstellar filaments?

by celeste » Tue Apr 09, 2013 1:19 pm

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=48623
After looking at filaments in the Gould Belt, they say, "Curiously, our study shows that all interstellar filaments detected in the three regions tend to have a typical width of about 0.3 light years", "This finding highlights that something must be going on at this particular scale".
Also look at this: http://www.everythingselectric.com/imag ... banner.jpg
I'll let you estimate the width of an individual filament. The entire nebula in this picture is 80 ly, and it is 6-7 ly wide.
So filaments in Goulds Belt, within a few hundred ly of the sun, are similar in width (again, you be the judge of how similar) to filaments in a nebula 25,000 ly away, and near the center of the galaxy? I agree with the mainstream here, something must be going on at this particular scale.
This idea occurred to me before, for a different reason. The double Helix Nebula appears to be spiraling in a 24,000 year cycle, and we've discussed how our ~26,000 year precessional cycle could be caused by such motion. Again, why should there be any similarity in scale between the sun's spiraling, and how a helix is spiraling at the center of our galaxy? (even more bizarre when you read Cruttenden's arguments that our precessional cycle is actually 24,000 yrs)

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by celeste » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:34 am

I've been thinking about that esa article all day, and think it's an important read for anyone interested in EU.
This statement alone:" "Filaments are the first structures to develop in the fragmentation process of molecular clouds, hence they're the objects to watch when investigating the very early stages of stellar formation," should weigh heavily in the debate between CharlesChandler and PersianPaladin, in the "Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model". Or again,"The analysis of all three regions shows that filaments precede star formation and, in some cases, pave the way for it."
Even to the mainstream, (unwilling to accept charge separation on galactic scales), star formation occurs from filaments. First filaments form. Then stars from them. That to me is profound.

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by D_Archer » Fri Apr 12, 2013 9:25 am

I liked this presentation: http://herschel.esac.esa.int/Publ/2012/Grenoble/20-1220_ArzoumanianD_Filaments.pdf From the abstract*: quote "the material may be accreting along the striations onto the main filament"; the width stays the same and the density increases. The width for interstellar filaments is roughly the same for all, how big the star becomes is dependent on the amount of matter accreted and time of fragmentation. Could EU come up with a better explanation for why the width generally stays the same? Standard explanation is dissipating turbulence and gravity.

{11/3/24 That link refers to supercritical filaments and star cluster formation. Perplexity.ai says re http://herschel.esac.esa.int/Publ/2012/Grenoble/20-1220_ArzoumanianD_Filaments.pdf, Supercritical filaments are elongated structures in interstellar space that play a crucial role in star formation. These filaments are characterized by their mass per unit length exceeding a critical threshold, making them gravitationally unstable and prone to fragmentation into star-forming cores. Key Characteristics: Mass per Unit Length: Supercritical filaments have a mass per unit length that exceeds the critical value. For example, observations have shown filaments with mean mass per unit length of approximately 80 M⊙ pc-1 (solar masses per parsec) after background subtraction1. Gravitational Instability: Due to their high mass per unit length, supercritical filaments are gravitationally bound and in virial equipartition1. This instability makes them susceptible to fragmentation and collapse, leading to the formation of stars. Magnetic Fields: Magnetic fields play a significant role in the evolution of supercritical filaments. They can increase accretion rates onto filaments and support the gas, resulting in higher average temperatures compared to unmagnetized counterparts1. Formation and Evolution: Supercritical filaments form through various processes in the interstellar medium: Shock Waves: They can emerge from cold neutral medium (CNM) environments undergoing shock waves and supersonic turbulence1. Velocity Dispersion: Filamentary molecular clouds form dynamically via shocks within a specific range of velocity dispersions, typically 5-10 km s-1, with an optimal value around 8 km s-1 1. Gravitational Contraction: As filaments accumulate mass and become supercritical, they undergo gravitational contraction7. Role in Star Formation: Supercritical filaments are crucial for star formation: Fragmentation: They fragment into star-forming cores through gravitational instabilities1. Cluster Formation: Cluster sink particles appear in filaments that exceed their critical line mass1. Timescales: Magnetic fields can delay the onset of cluster formation in supercritical filaments by approximately 0.4 Myr1. Understanding supercritical filaments is essential for comprehending the star formation process in molecular clouds and the overall evolution of the interstellar medium.}

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by celeste » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:52 pm

Daniel, Thanks for the link. That presentation contains a lot of useful information. They are wrong,of course, about filaments forming by turbulent fragmentation. The formation of filaments by electric currents is probably one of the best understood parts of the EU model. The relationship of velocity dispersion to filament density, is also easily explained in the EU model. More particle density, means more current density, means faster rotation of the filament. The velocity dispersion is a measure of filament rotation speed,the faster the rotation, the wider the spread in particle velocities. The question then becomes, why in their graph of velocity dispersion vs central column density, is there that break at the speed of sound?
See if this sounds right: If we have fairly low density current filaments, with weak electrical forces, we may drive particle velocities up to the sound barrier, but no more. Adding slightly more filament density (more electromagnetic forces), still is not enough to force particles past this sound barrier (shock waves). Which explains the flat portion of the graph on the left side. Once we reach that threshold of particle density, where electrical forces are capable of pushing particles past this barrier, we are back to the relationship of increasing current density=faster rotation. That explains the sloping on the right side of the graph.

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by Michael Mozina » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:22 pm

The term "turbulence" is essentially their way of tap dancing around the term "current". It's likely to be related to changes in the current in the thread in some areas, and the materials themselves. Not only have they accepted the fact that filaments come first, they know something *else* is involved in the formation process. Of course they dare not talk about electrical current, lest their mythology die a horrible scientific death.

FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by CharlesChandler » Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:30 pm

Guidelines
FF&AD stands for "friendly for & against debate", meaning that I'm suggesting that this thread abide by some guidelines loosely sketched out in the Rules for Friendly Debating thread. Essentially, this thread is just for debating one interpretation of the data. Alternate interpretations can be referenced here, but should be further explored in their own threads, and replies (for & against) to those interpretations should be posted in those threads, not this one. All threads abiding by these guidelines should begin with "FF&AD...", so that they'll be easy to find later.
Data
It's easy to see that the Universe is full of filaments, especially in stellar nurseries. Here are some papers that Lloyd located on the topic. Please post links to other papers if you know of any, especially those with the low-level data showing the physical characteristics of filaments.
Carlqvist, P., 1988: Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation. Astrophysics and Space Science, 144 (1-2): 73-84
Verschuur, G. L., 1995: Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch. Astrophysics and Space Science, 227 (1-2): 187-198
Peretto, N. et al., 2012: The Pipe Nebula as seen with Herschel: Formation of filamentary structures by large-scale compression?
Other Interpretations
One interpretation, as discussed in the typical width for interstellar filaments? thread and elsewhere, is that stars are forming in these filaments due to the magnetic pinch effect. (Elaboration on that interpretation should be done on that thread.)
Related Threads
But there's another interpretation, which is the subject of this thread. For book-keeping purposes, I "think" that the first time I presented this was on the ...Where does the juice come from? thread. Anyway, what I'm saying here is substantially similar, but I did new diagrams to better illustrate it, and this thread is just for this idea.
Principle Contention
It's possible that the observed currents, and their related magnetic fields, are not causes, but rather effects, of the accretion. If "something" causes the accretion, the movement of the plasma toward the centroids will look like an electric current with an associated magnetic field, because the matter is ionized, and thus it constitutes moving electric charges, which is the definition of an electric current, and which will generate a magnetic field. But that doesn't mean that the current was the prime mover, nor that the magnetic field is forcing the accretion. Something else might have caused the movement.
So what is the nature of that "something" that pulls the matter together? We all know that it isn't gravity, which can account for only 1/5 to 1/20 of the force necessary. The principle contention is that the force is electrostatic, in the "like-likes-like" configuration.
In a dusty plasma, the dust grains pick up a negative charge, due to the higher mobility of the electrons. Thus more electrons impact the dust grain than +ions, and electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust grain, while the surrounding gas becomes ionized by the loss of electrons, forming what is known as a Debye sheath. The dust grain and its Debye sheath, taken together, are net neutral, and normally, we'd think that they would not interact electrically with their environments. Well, they don't interact much. But if we're looking for something that is 5 times greater than the near-infinitesimal force of gravity, it doesn't have to be much.
Fact of the matter is that there is a net force between net-neutral systems -- it's called the "like-likes-like" force (as Richard Feynman called it). In a cluster of these things, the negative dust grains repel each other, while being attracted to the Debye sheaths. In-between dust grains, the Debye sheaths overlap, increasing the attraction. So while the dust grains repel each other, they are attracted to their shared +ion clouds. Now we just have to remember that the electric force obeys in the inverse square law. This means that the attraction to the shared +ion clouds is greater than the repulsion between the like-charged dust grains, because the +ion clouds are closer. This means that there is a net attraction "between likes", hence the paradoxical "like-likes-like" force. And since the attraction is between every dust grain and each of its neighbors, this isn't going to just pull one dust grain toward one other dust grain. Rather, it's a net body force on the entire dusty plasma, pulling it all together.
LLL_Filaments_3.png

But also notice that there is a lot of repulsion in that configuration, between like charged dust grains, and like charged +ion clouds. Now look what happens if the spherical dusty plasma is stretched into a filament. There is no repulsion anywhere in this configuration! All of the electric lines of force close on the nearest neighbor, which is oppositely charged. So it's all attraction and no repulsion.
LLL_Filaments_4.png

I conclude from this that the net attractive force in this configuration is much greater, and thus the chances of accretion are much greater. So then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically. I'm thinking that a nearby supernova doesn't "compress" a dusty plasma into a star, but rather, stirs things up a bit, and in the stirring, filaments get stretched into existence. Once formed, they'll snap together. In other words, it would be like grabbing a balloon and stretching it into a filament. Eventually, the balloon bursts, and then the rubber is pulled violently toward the poor little fingers that stretched it into a filament.
I'm currently working out the implications of this. In 3D, stretching a spherical dusty plasma into a filament won't instantaneously create a single-file filament. Rather, the first form of accretion is toward the axis of the filament, as it stretches thinner & thinner. I'm thinking that this "thinning filament accretion" is where stars get their first chance of forming. With radial inflow toward the axis along the filament, conflicting magnetic fields will result in a spiraling inflow, and the fields will resolve into an axial field, parallel to the axis of the filament. This agrees with the data, and suggests that the "currents" are not Birkeland currents spinning around an external magnetic field, but rather, they are collapsing charged particles that form their own magnetic field. This explains how zig-zag filaments could have zig-zag axial magnetic fields. A Birkeland current running through an external magnetic field would have all of the filaments aligned to the external magnetic field -- they wouldn't zig-zag.
Also, if stars are forming simply by the accretion of a dusty plasma that got stretched, stars will form like beads on a string, and the string itself will never snap together end-to-end. The beads-on-a-string configuration is common, and this appears to be a plausible explanation.
Rebuttals
If you can think of a reason why these mechanisms wouldn't produce the proposed effects, please post a reply here. If have a different interpretation of the same data, start a new thread, and please cross-link it here, but discuss it in depth there.

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by CharlesChandler » Sat Apr 13, 2013 2:38 pm

nick c wrote: But you should not divert the thread to a discussion of an alternative theory.

Pardon the digression, but I actually agree with your point here. I have suggested that threads be limited to "for & against" reasoning, where only the evidence in support of one interpretation is debated. Alternative interpretations should be new "for & against" threads. (Further discussion on that issue can be added to the "Rules for Friendly Debating" thread, and please accept my apology for the digression.)

As concerns filaments, I totally agree that they're ubiquitous in space, and especially in stellar nurseries, so stellar models need to take a close look at filaments. I also agree that there are currents in the filaments. But I disagree that it is the currents that are causing the stellar accretion. Here we have to remember that there are two opposing forces in high-velocity charged matter. The magnetic field generated by the moving electric charges produces a magnetic pinch effect. But like charges repel each other also, by the Coulomb force. The greater the charge, the greater the magnetic pinch effect, but the greater the electrostatic repulsion as well, by definition. And at less than the speed of light, the electrostatic repulsion is greater than the magnetic pinch. So accretion by magnetic pinch is a self-defeating proposition. Furthermore, even if Marklund convection could create a solid axial filament, that thing would be zipping through space at a relativistic velocity. This is not what we observe. If it was, the next thing we would observe is this relativistic thread smacking into something, which would create supernova, not a star.

I started a thread for an alternative interpretation of the same data: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like". Discussion of that interpretation can be posted in that thread.

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by celeste » Sat Apr 13, 2013 10:20 pm

Charles, We do get accretion of matter from filaments, and it IS relevant to this thread. You are right that we don't get relativistic particle velocities from current filaments. But we do get supersonic velocities. That is what the mainstream is measuring here. They think filament size is related to the transition from supersonic to subsonic particle velocities.
I think we all agree that particle velocities can be driven up past the speed of sound, by current filaments. And that at some radius from the filament, those forces must fall off, to where we don't have supersonic velocities. And that there is a range at which particles pile up, close to, but not quite crossing the sound barrier. The point is, then we end up with shock fronts from filaments. What is a shock front if NOT an accumulation of matter? We know too, that due to Marklund convection, neutral matter is pushed out to here too (not towards the filament's axis). This is a point I was missing myself. The mainstream may be wrong about the cause of these shock fronts, but I was wrong in ignoring shock fronts completely.
One point to notice is the odd rotation curve a filament should have. Near the filament, rotation velocities of a particle around the filament, fall off with electromagnetic forces. Then we get to a range where we have a nearly flat rotation curve. Particles can be driven fairly easily up to nearly the speed of sound, but it takes quite a bit more force (nearer to the filament) before we can "break the sound barrier". Sound kind of like the galactic rotation curves due to dark matter?
So at any rate, I believe that the mainstream is right that the size of a filament is determined by that sonic barrier, they are missing the currents that drive those particle velocities. It does seem like, if we do need that huge increase in filament power, to get particles to break the sound barrier, that would explain the similar width current filaments. We could increase the particle density (current)in a filament quite a bit, before it would cause much expansion in the filament's radius. What I would expect them to find then, is that filaments do increase very slightly in size with filament density. Any other ideas on that point?

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by CharlesChandler » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:40 pm

Be careful when mixing EM and fluid dynamics. The mainstream is somewhere between sloppy and surreal on this, and if you're trying to think in physical terms, you can easily get off track. Plasma approaches an ideal gas as the degree of ionization increases, meaning less friction, smaller boundary vortexes, and less turbulence. This is rarely taken into account. Pressure waves can also propagate through plasma at supersonic speeds, since ions don't have to wait until they collide with neighbors to transfer Newtonian force -- they start pushing on each other as soon as the distance between them changes, via the Coulomb force. And when electric and/or magnetic forces are present, supersonic speeds are easily achieved, and not so much because they're such powerful forces, but because it's a different type of force. The speed of sound is a limit when you're trying to transfer mechanical energy through a medium via pressure waves. But some other form of energy can blow past the sound barrier like it wasn't there. (For example, a jet engine can push a plane past the sound barrier. But it has to be in afterburner mode, because the turbines rely on the Bernoulli principle, which is purely subsonic.) To put it all together, in a plasma that moves with little friction, and which can be motivated by electric and/or magnetic forces, the speed of sound might just be irrelevant, but if you do get turbulence, shock waves from the pressure fluctuations might travel at supersonic speeds through the neighboring plasma! In other words, the rules are all different. In the mainstream literature, MHD pretty much uses whatever EM or FD formula produces the answers they want, whether it's relevant or not, so don't take their word for it, and definitely don't think that they're talking in physical terms.

Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by CharlesChandler » Sat Apr 13, 2013 11:41 pm

Here are the papers mentioning the significance of turbulence in triggering the formation of filaments:
André, Ph., et al., 2010: From filamentary clouds to prestellar cores to the stellar IMF: Initial highlights from the Herschel Gould belt survey, A&A, 518, L102
Arzoumanian, D., et al., 2011: Characterising interstellar filaments with Herschel in IC 5146, A&A, 529, L6

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by CharlesChandler » Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:30 pm

celeste wrote: The relationship of velocity dispersion to filament density, is also easily explained in the EU model. More particle density, means more current density, means faster rotation of the filament.

Why would more particle density mean more current density? In gases & plasmas, conductivity varies inversely with density.

celeste wrote: The question then becomes, why in their graph of velocity dispersion vs central column density, is there that break at the speed of sound?

It might just mean that the plasma is collapsing. As it approaches the centroid, the velocity and the density go up. So this might be just a measure of how far along it is in the process.

Michael Mozina wrote: In the lab, electrical current causes plasma to create "threads", and clumps of mass are "pinched" together by the magnetic fields that surround that current. It's not a mystery, it's basic plasma physics for goodness sake!

Which lab?

Re: typical width for interstellar filaments?

by CharlesChandler » Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:58 pm

celeste wrote: You're right that if the plasma is collapsing, particle velocities and density go up. But then we are left with an odd result. With all these filaments they observe, over all this range of densities, they just happen to see each filament as it has collapsed to the same apparent diameter? The whole point of the mainstream article here, was that they see filaments in different areas, with different densities, and different degrees of star formation, yet all have the same diameter. This seems to imply some stability in filament diameter; meaning the filaments (and the plasma that composes them) are definitely not collapsing.

Hmmm... I just went back over the articles, and I see your point here. But I still have nothing but questions. Do we know that the velocities are rotational?

Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by justcurious » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:16 am

2 of 3 of Lloyd's referenced papers refer to a magnetic pinch effect, same as the EU position. The 3d paper discusses turbulence and mechanical processes and magnetism (but without electricity... Bad science). It seems to me that like likes like would result in clumping, like the clouds in our sky, rather than filamentary structures.

Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by CharlesChandler » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:09 am

I referenced those papers for their low-level data, not their interpretations. As concerns clumping versus filaments, where specifically do you disagree with the concept illustrated in the "LLL_Filaments_4.png" image?

Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by CharlesChandler » Mon May 06, 2013 2:42 am

justcurious wrote: I don't really know what that diagram represents. Is it a representation of your interpretation? Or is it from some paper? Is it a simulator? It's not clear to me.

It shows the electric field lines between opposite point charges, as calculated by a simulator. Here's a link to the code if you'd like to review it. The workhorse is the doSolve() function, which solves Poisson's equation in nested grids.
http://www.falstad.com/emstatic/EMStatic.java

justcurious wrote: I don't disagree with like likes like, just that it seems a stretch of the imagination, whereas magnetic pinching is a direct cause and effect.

The "like-likes-like" principle has been proven in the laboratory. I haven't run the numbers to find the actual strengths of the net forces in plasma. So many calcs; so little time!

But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?

D_Archer wrote: like-likes-like is not a physical process, it explains nothing.

What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.

D_Archer wrote: You would need to look for a push force and your model does not represent it.

Why wouldn't a "pull" do the job?

D_Archer wrote: Supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything.

How did you arrive at this?

D_Archer wrote: And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.

And how did you arrive at that one?

D_Archer wrote: The compression is magnetic...

The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.

D_Archer wrote: Please be aware that currently all research on dusty plasma invoke a current first not the other way around.

Argumentum ad populum.

Sparky wrote: What experimental data would falsify [the electrostatic filaments hypothesis]?

The next step would be to run the numbers, on the "like-likes-like" force between Debye cells in an arbitrary 3D arrangement, and then the numbers for the filamentary configuration.

Re: FF&AD: Filamentary Stellar Nurseries: "Like-Likes-Like"

by CharlesChandler » Mon May 06, 2013 12:26 pm

CharlesChandler wrote: The "like-likes-like" principle has been proven in the laboratory. I haven't run the numbers to find the actual strengths of the net forces in plasma. So many calcs; so little time!

But the principle is real. And sure, z-pinches are real too. But would they do what the EU says they do?

D_Archer wrote: Like-likes-like is just an observation it is not a force nor a process, it is an understanding of nothing physical.

If the electric force is physical, and if it obeys the inverse square law, the "like-likes-like" principle is physical. Note that this is the same force that binds atoms together into molecules, which otherwise would be inexplicable, since neutral atoms should have no affinity for each other. Yet the mutual attraction of positive nuclei to shared electrons generates a powerful binding force. If that's not physical, what is?

CharlesChandler wrote: What do you mean by "process"? It's electrostatics, which defines forces. Not what I would call a "process", but in this configuration, it generates a body force more powerful than gravity, which makes it a candidate for explaining dusty plasma collapse.

D_Archer wrote: an observation generates a body force...

It's ironic that the entire EU method involves just three steps: 1) observe similarities between astronomical phenomena and plasma discharges, 2) conclude without further analysis that they must the same thing, and 3) argue with anyone who disagrees. Yet the physical forces are provably quite different, meaning that they are not the same thing at all, and the superficial similarity is misleading. But in my more detailed analysis of the actual physical forces, I'm accused of promoting observations to physical forces.

D_Archer wrote: Supernovae are not the cause of stirring anything.

CharlesChandler wrote: How did you arrive at this?

D_Archer wrote: Common sense.

Denying that supernovae stir neighboring plasmas isn't common sense. A supernova expels matter. When that matter collides with a nearby dusty plasma, any inconsistencies in the densities of the dusty plasma and the supernova ejecta will result in turbulence. This always happens in collisions, and I can cite plenty of common examples.

D_Archer wrote: I think it would be well and proper to not use mainstream 'supernova-did-it' explanations to build models.

The correlation between supernovae and dusty plasma collapse is incontrovertible. How this happens is where I diverge from the mainstream (and from the EU).

D_Archer wrote: And the filaments are a compressive phenomena so using an agent that does not compresses but stirs solves nothing.

CharlesChandler wrote: And how did you arrive at that one?

D_Archer wrote: I did not arrive, you did, you used something that stirs to explain compression.

No, I acknowledge the collision between supernova ejecta and the neighboring dusty plasma, which causes turbulence (which you do not acknowledge). Then, I'm saying that the turbulence stretches the plasma into filaments, and then the electrostatic forces cause the collapse.

D_Archer wrote: The compression is magnetic...

CharlesChandler wrote: The magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter. The more ionized the matter, and the faster it is moving, the more the compression. But the more ionized the matter, the more the electrostatic repulsion. This is a small factor in sparse plasmas, but the greater the charge density, the stronger the repulsion. (That's because the magnetic fields responsible for the z-pinch fall off with the inverse of the distance, but electric fields fall off with the inverse of the square of the distance. So the electric force is stronger at close range, while the magnetic force is more influential at a long range.) Only at the speed of light does the magnetic force (theoretically) become as strong as the electric force at close range. So it is not physically possible to create condensed matter with a z-pinch, and if stars are condensed matter, they weren't formed by z-pinches.

D_Archer wrote: Your understanding of what is physically possible does not really impress. You start off okay with: "magnetic pinch effect can certainly compress matter" indeed this is so and than you try to spin it and say that it can not... why?

The magnetic force can compress matter, but not all of the way into a condensed state. Since the Sun's density is greater than that of liquid hydrogen, it's appropriate to call it condensed matter. And since the Sun's properties are similar to other stars, the same goes for them too. So the question of star formation is necessarily a matter of finding the forces that can get matter that compressed. And since the electric force is very definitely a factor at close range, and is more powerful than the magnetic force, it needs to be taken into account. When it is, z-pinches are eliminated as possible condensing agents.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-image-star-forming-filaments.html