The Earth's magnetic field: a final clarification in favor of his young age

by D.Russel Humphreys

Summary, translation and revision by Andrea Ricci and Cristian Bovo

Not everyone knows the reason for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field even though it is known to everyone that any magnetized needle tends to point north if left free to rotate as happens with a compass. The force that causes the needle to move is due to the earth's magnetic field which is in turn generated by a large electric current that flows through the molten metal contained in the center of the earth. Now, as with all magnetic fields, corresponds to a precise level of energy that varies with the passage of time. In accordance with the most recent experimental observations, the total energy of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing so rapidly (Humphreys, 2002) that the hypotheses of a very ancient land would assume that there should be no residual energy left ... (so today the compasses should no longer work!)

Evolutionists have naturally proposed theories to overcome this paradox and in particular, their arguments are related to the fact that a minor component (call “do not dipole”) of the magnetic field is storing enough energy to compensate for the large-scale loss experimentally observed on the principal component of the field (call “dipolare”).

Note that the main component (“dipolare”) it is the one responsible for the fact that almost everywhere the compass points to the North while the secondary components (“not dipolar”) are those responsible for the fact that in certain points of the earth the compass needle is deflected. As for the energy stored by the field “do not dipole” it is assumed that one day it will be sold to the main component (“dipole”) according to a sort of perpetual motion that should keep the earth's magnetic field alive over time. The transfer of energy from the minor component (“do not dipole”) to the main one (“dipolare”) it would generate a reversal or inversion of the field itself (in an overturned field the compass would point south !).

These inferences stem from an epic battle between creationist physicist Thomas G. Barnes and evolutionist G. Brent Dalrymple which is then taken up by the author (Humphreys) to end the game in Barnes's favor by proving that the theory of evolutionary conservation is unfounded, and at the same time reiterating that the decay of the energy of the earth's magnetic field is such as to justify a young earth.

Historical details Thirty years ago, Dr. Barnes (1971) began to advertise a “untouchable secret” about the Earth's magnetic field. The main component of the field (“dipolare”) has lost energy rapidly and steadily since its first measurement in the early nineteenth century – circa 15% in 170 years! Always dr. Barnes showed that the loss was fully compatible with the reasonable explanation that the electrical resistance of the heart of the earth is steadily transforming into thermal energy. (by Joule effect) the energy stored in the magnetic field (Barnes 1973).

The result of this phenomenon is the reduction of the electric current that generates the field. He also pointed out that such a rapid loss of energy cannot continue for longer than 10.000 years thus raising a strong motivation in favor of a young magnetic field and therefore of a young earth. For nearly a decade, evolutionists ignored the question raised, hoping that it could be eliminated on its own. At the end, Dalrymple (1983) has published several articles with the aim of “crush” the arguments of Dr. Barnes. He pointed out that Barnes ignored the strong fluctuations of the field before three thousand years ago and the many reversals of the direction of the field recorded by the geological data. [to understand what is meant by fluctuations in the field, consider the needle of a compass.

Simplifying a lot, they would point the needle in different directions with respect to the Earth's magnetic north, while the overturning of the field would have led the needle to point south instead of north, ed]. Its implication has been to suppose that the present decline of the magnetic field is nothing more than an effect generated by another reversal of the direction of the field according to the following cycle: Barnes (1984) he replied that fluctuations and reversals in the direction of the field never occurred. A new fan comes in Although I was in favor of Barnes's arguments, I did not find his arguments about field reversals and fluctuations to be persuasive. After studying the question, I concluded that the evidence relating to past reversals of the field is very strong (Humphreys,1988). In order to explain them, I generalized Barnes's theory by relating it to the rapid motions of the electrically conductive fluid contained in the center of the Earth [note that the electric current is supposed to pass inside this fluid, which in turn generates the earth's magnetic field, ed].

My theory is that the motions of this fluid stimulated by a planetary catastrophe have produced rapids (daily and weekly) reversals of the magnetic field during the Deluge of Genesis and the strong fluctuations of the same for several millennia after the Flood. Apart from this, I predicted the types of experimental evidence that would support my theory (Humphreys, 1986). Three years later, two other experts in the same discipline, they would have found such evidence (Coe e Prévot, 1989). In 1990, I have published a more detailed physical model to explain the reversals of the field and I have shown that the same during the aforementioned reversals and fluctuations would lose energy even more rapidly than it does today (Humphreys, 1990) [precisely for this reason the inversions and fluctuations of the field cannot be identified as elements which help the conservation of energy, ed]. In general, the speed with which the field loses energy explains that it is certainly young in age, that is, in the order of tens of thousands of years, consistent with the 6000 years enunciated by the Holy Scriptures.

An article appeared in the prestigious magazine “Nature” (Coe et al., 1994) showed additional evidence to support my predictions of the 1986 about the rapid reversals of the field. After that fact, as far as I am aware, evolutionists have stopped using scientific journals to attack the Barnes-Humphreys theory. Also in the 1986, after reading my research, Dalrymple, while being able to be part of the official critics, he gave up on that opportunity knowing that his views would be relentlessly published. My suspicion is that the skeptics (evolutionists) wanted to keep Barnes' original theory in evidence for any other attacks trying to draw attention as little as possible to my less vulnerable version of the same. Whatever the reason, criticisms of my theory have withdrawn a “stages” less scientific and less public such as skeptical websites. In these locations, the attacks persisted primarily by focusing on another of Dalrymple's theses which involves the parties “dipolari” e “not dipolar” of the Earth's magnetic field. The next section explains in detail what Dalrymple's theses were in this regard. The party “dipolari” e “not dipolar” of the field The figure 1 shows the magnetic lines of force of a pure dipolar field. The lines emerge from the North Pole and converge and reenter from the South Pole (hence the word “di-poli”). What makes the dipolar field pure is the fact that the lines of force have the particular shape that I have shown. Several things can produce a field with the form of the type “dipolare” pure. One would be a small but powerful magnet in the center of the sphere as shown in the figure 2(a). The Earth's magnetic field does not have the pure dipolar form e, in certain regions, it can differ from a dipolar field up to 10% by direction and intensity. Geomagnetic specialists simplify the description of such type-defined deviations “do not dipole” adding other small magnets in these regions according to the geometric shapes of the lines of force highlighted by the figures 2(b) e 2(c): the sum of all the non-dipolar parts of the field corresponding to the various regions of the Earth where there is the aforementioned deviation is defined “non-dipolar field”. Field of a pure dipole around a sphere Examples of magnetic fields “dipolari” (a) e “not dipolar” (b,c) generated by magnetic bars of course, magnetic bars are not the real sources of the earth's magnetic field. The real causes are electric currents, most of which are based in the center of the earth [note that any electric current generates a magnetic head and in particular, orienting the electric current appropriately it is possible to obtain a magnet without having magnetic material available, ed]. A donut-shaped stream (see figure 3) with intensity around six billion amperes (!!!) and thousands of kilometers in diameter due to the main part o “dipolare” from the field. Other currents with smaller intensity and diameter (thousands / millions of amps and hundreds of kilometers) and disparate orientations are the most probable causes of the presence of the “non-dipolar field”. Another possible cause of the non-dipolar field could be a small deformation (a few hundred kilometers) of the main current circle (figure 3) from the center to the north direction. (Form of the current that produces the dipolar part of the earth's magnetic field)Many different combinations of electric current could produce the magnetic field we observe, but the physical and mathematical evidences agree that this is composed of a “dipolar component” and from one “non-dipolar component” among which the dipolar component is decidedly preponderant. The knights of lost energy Now we can move on to specify Dalrymple's second thesis. Referring to the report (MacDonald e Gunst 1967) that Barnes had expounded Dalrymple wrote: “... this decrease [of energy of the dipolar field] it was almost completely balanced by an increase in the energy of the non-dipolar field as well as the energy of the total field (sum of dipole plus’ the non-dipole) it has remained practically constant.” This statement is consistent with the general line of the arguments proposed by Dalrymple according to the principle that the energy lost by the dipolar part of the field instead of being dissipated as heat (as claimed by Barnes, ed) it is stored by the non-dipolar parts of it.

Further on, over time, the further thesis is that the energy of the non-dipolar parts was converted into dipolar with the same intensity as before but with the opposite direction of the lines of force. In this way, passing through cycles that gradually see the field reverse its direction, total energy would be maintained for billions of years. Better data as of 1970 Barnes replied to Dalrymple by classifying the non-dipolar part of the field as simple “noise” (Barnes 1984). This position denies the experimental evidence of the non-dipolar parts of the field, but at the same time it correctly states that until then the non-dipolar parts of the field had not been measured correctly. Dalrymple had based his entire second argument on the recent increase in the non-dipolar field. However, the measured increase was reduced when compared to the background noise of the measurements themselves. To estimate the energy of the non-dipolar parts [as they are of minor importance, ed] more accurate measurements are needed than those needed to measure the dipole part (Humphreys 2002). The data of the 1967 they just weren't good enough to support Dalrymple's point… However, immediately after the 1967 the measurements of the non-dipolar field began to be more’ reliable.

The international association of geomagnetism and aeronomy (IAGA) has since organized a global effort to accumulate and publish more accurate data on the Earth's magnetic field. In 1970 the International Geomagnetic Reference Field has been published (IGRF) that is a table of 129 numbers that describe both the dipolar and the non-dipolar part of the Earth's magnetic field. Since that time, other similar tables have been published each 5 years. The whole IGRF data from the year 1970 al 2000 they are the most accurate description that is currently available on the earth's magnetic field and the changes it undergoes. The results: good news for creationists Last year, stimulated by frequent questions on the subject, I downloaded the numbers from the IGRF website and started implementing and using the mathematical model necessary to determine the energy accumulated in the various components of the earth's magnetic field(*) applying it to data ranging from the year 1900 al 2000. The chart 1 summarizes the results obtained. The data is expressed in penta joules (remember that 1 penta joule = 1PT equivalent 1015 Joule). From the data obtained, it can be seen that the total energy accumulated in the earth's magnetic field has decreased since 1950 al 2000 of about 180 PJ that is, of a quantity equal to 50 billions of kilowatt hours (kWh). Always from the table 1 it is possible to note that the total energy of the field increased in the decade between 1940 and the 1950. Naturally, such a phenomenon has no physical sense as energy cannot be created.

The reason for this particular trend lies in the inaccurate data relating to the measurement of the magnetic field available in that historical period. (*) For an accurate description of the mathematical model used, see D. Russell Humphreys, “The earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy”, CRSQ Creation Research Society Quarterly CRSQ, Vol. 30, No. 1, June 2002. Table 1 – Energy of the Earth's magnetic field in the dipolar and harmonic components from 1900 al 2000 from 1970, instead, the available data are decidedly more precise. In these 30 years the total energy of the dipolar field has decreased by about 235 PJ while that of the non-dipolar field increased by 129 PJ; consequently the total energy stored in the field has decreased by 96 PJ. The figure 4, 5 e 6 respectively show the energy accumulated in the dipolar fields, non dipolar and total for the period from 1970 al 2000. In summary, over 30 years, the net total energy loss was 1.41 %. With these rhythms of decadence, the field would lose half of its energy in about 1500 years. This result implies that the field is young… Figure 4 - Energy stored in the dipolar field since 1970 al 2000. Figure 5 - Energy stored in the non-dipolar field since 1970 al 2000. Figure 6 - Total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field since 1970 al 2000. For those who wonder what about the energy related to the non-dipolar parts and the fact that this is increasing, the explanation is provided by my theory of inversions and fluctuations (Humphreys 1990, p. 137). Small eddies in the fluid of the center of the earth cause small circular electric currents out of the main current as suggested by the figure 7. This should subtract energy from the dipolar part of the field and add it to the non-dipolar ones. Figure 7. Currents that produce the non-dipolar part of the earth's magnetic field

however, these small circular electric currents lose energy faster than the main one. The reason is that the decay time of a circular electric current flow is proportional to the square of its diameter (Humphreys, 1986, p. 119). The non-dipolar parts of the field therefore lose energy as heat more rapidly than the dipolar parts. It is interesting to note that the article quoted at the time by Dalrymple agrees with me since it comments that fluid movements displace the dipolar energy destructively in the non-dipolar part causing a faster dissipation of energy into heat. Dalrymple seems to have left out this comment as it could have cast doubts on his hopes that energy will be conserved. As long as the main dipole field is strong enough, in addition to dissipating energy by itself it will supply energy to the secondary non-dipolar parts which in turn will dissipate it in the form of heat. During this time the energy of the secondary parts will increase because it is continuously fed by the main field. however, when the main dipolar field is sufficiently small and will no longer be able to transfer energy to the secondary non-dipolar field, the energy of the latter will also begin to decrease.

Anyhow, the sum of the energy of the two parts (main and secondary) it will have to continue to decline rapidly as we observe today. Dalrymple's hopes collapsed while Barnes was right.

0

0