Science Daily: Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High.
ScienceDaily (Sep. 29, 2009) — Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.
"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."
The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."
"We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, "so it is no surprise that cosmic rays are at record levels for the Space Age."
Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are subatomic particles--mainly protons but also some heavy nuclei--accelerated to almost light speed by distant supernova explosions. Cosmic rays cause "air showers" of secondary particles when they hit Earth's atmosphere; they pose a health hazard to astronauts; and a single cosmic ray can disable a satellite if it hits an unlucky integrated circuit.
In 1976 the French astrophysicist Alfred Vidal-Madjar and colleagues discovered that our solar system encounters many cosmic clouds formed by Supernova Remnants. Vidal-Madjar et al discovered we were entering one of these cosmic clouds and they predicted that we would have problems with Earth’s climate over the next ten thousand years!
ReplyDeleteThe solar system is barely 15 years into this cosmic cloud and we see already how the climate has changed. The encounter was verified in 2005 by Voyager 1 and 2 in the termination shock of our solar system with interstellar cosmic radiation and confirmed by Japanese scientists in the last year.
Nice to see you again BF!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting comment as usual.
Thank you for sharing.
Good to know. I think that there is promise in some kind of fusor-propulsion system, that can overcome the inertia of the massive lead radiation shields with ease.
ReplyDeleteAre you seriously conflating these cosmic rays with your mythical Galactic Electrical Currents?
ReplyDeleteJeffery,
ReplyDeleteDo you know what a charged particle is?
Why do you think electromagnetism is a myth?
Ignoring your stupid rejoinder, your answer is yes. Do the incoming cosmic rays account for the electric current required to power the sun?
ReplyDeleteJeffery
ReplyDeleteWhy do you not read up on EU theory as you seem to accept that EMF plays a part in the Universe? OIM gets narky if he has to do it all for you?
Just look at it? Or will it turn you to stone?
The fleet of sun-orbiting probes we have launched have so far failed to find this incoming electron stream. They find a great outpouring from the sun, but nothing's going in.
ReplyDeleteHow does EU account for it?
Answer: It doesn't. It's not there, and you lot are ignoring it.
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteSo you think so-called "galactic cosmic rays" come from the Sun?
Why does the article say "Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system"?
Fungus,
ReplyDeleteThis is where Plasma Cosmology began. If you can make any sense of this, more power to you!
It begins with presumptive existence of matter-antimatter, and we exist in a boundary (some bs about double layered, ambiplasma, effectively confining all of us in this never to escape without annihilation, blah, blah, blah, without any proofs, but hot winded (plasmatic?) claims) - From Wiki:
The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds, basing some of his work on the ideas Kristian Birkeland first described at the turn of the century and Oskar Klein's earlier proposal that astrophysical plasmas had an important influence on galaxy formation. During 1971, Klein extended Alfvén's proposals and develop the "Alfvén-Klein model" of cosmology. Their cosmology relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic matter and antimatter that created the universe or meta-galaxy as they preferred to speculate (see the Shapley-Curtis debate for more on the history of distinguishing between the universe and the Milky Way galaxy). This hypothetical substance that spawned the universe was termed "ambiplasma" and took the forms of proton-antiprotons (heavy ambiplasma) and electrons-positrons (light ambiplasma). In Alfvén's cosmology, the universe contained heavy symmetric ambiplasma with protective light ambiplasma, separated by double layers. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate with each other rapidly. Annihilation radiation would emanate from the double layers of plasma and antiplasma domains. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays[citation needed], x-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.[12]
Ambiplasma was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe as being due to an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter.[13] According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred at the boundaries. Therefore, they concluded that we must happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature.
Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed[14] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[15] The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent expansion of the universe as merely a local phase of a much larger history.
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[10]
KV,
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is a not a reliable or accurate resource.
You might note however that your earlier false claim that Plasma Cosmology is a creationist idea is refuted in your quote.
You might also want to note that Alfvén won the Nobel Prize in 1970 while his unknown critics won nothing.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteWiki is a mostly a self-correcting portal that gives quick start. You are free to edit what you think is incorrect at Wiki. Go for it.
Alfven may not be a creationist, per WIKI article, which you erroneously attribute to me. Why does he propose to believe in stuff like ambiplasma, or matter-antimatter which seem to exist in space-pockets and can only interface at boundaries – so called double layers? What stops matter-antimatter to go boom, like a big bang? If we only live in double layers, would all the matter-antimatter act like a “dark matter” to us? He also implies many confinements and possibly many universes, again, for that I must believe in his creation, which many EU and plasma guys believe like a religion, without ever proposing how to independently test the premises.
Finally, Nobel prize is not based on what you believe, but what you contributed in advancement of sciences, politics, arts and all the fields of human endeavors.
And, you are free to worship any and all Nobel laureates.
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteAh, the master of "cut and paste".
(Which is okay, but doesn't show much facility with the concepts and scientific evidence.)
Yes, KV, you are simply a debunker, which is okay, but hardly what you initially represented yourself to be.
Alfven did start out with the anti-matter - matter dicotomy, but that was an initial foray.
I'm dubious of that proposition as there is no scientific evidence to support it, and Alfven, after starting with that proposition, seems to either have dropped it, or de-emphasized it.
The anti-matter - matter idea is rarely, if at all discussed in Alfven's later work. And, now, no Plasma Cosmologist or Electric Universe theorist raises that idea.
Wikipedia emphasizes this initial foray because it is controlled by those that oppose Plasma Cosmology and like you want to either debunk it or discourage readers from doing independent research.
I wouldn't hold a theory to the initial ideas of its proponents, no matter how great the men proposing it.
Science is filled with examples of false starts.
The relevant issue is what is the mature theory and what are observations & measurements that support it.
In that stead, Plasma Cosmology and its extension Electric Universe hold up very well.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteAlfven probably needed matter-antimatter as source and sink to support the ambiplasma nonsense.
If you begin with "plasma", like most EU/plasma guys now advocate, you don't need to worry about matter-antimatter or ambiplasma, and source/sink is eliminated by creating universe so vast! Total bs, and disservice to plasma science, which by the way is also funded heavily by the US Govt. throgh peer review processes.
I have a suggestion for you: compose your post and search for rants, and then, unnecessary insults, because it takes away from may be a flicker of intelligence you might have.
KV,
ReplyDelete"Wiki is a mostly a self-correcting portal that gives quick start. You are free to edit what you think is incorrect at Wiki. Go for it."
It doesn't self-correct at all. In actuality Wikipedia gets progressively less accurate and less scientific with each new edit.
"Why does he propose to believe in stuff like ambiplasma, or matter-antimatter which seem to exist in space-pockets and can only interface at boundaries – so called double layers?
Perhaps because we know for a fact that antimatter exists in the form of positrons (positively charged electrons). This was discovered by Carl David Anderson (another Nobel Prize winner I admire). Were it not for antimatter we would not have Positron Emission Tomography.
"And, you are free to worship any and all Nobel laureates."
Good zinger. I sense intelligence in you. Perhaps there is hope you will leave the dogmatic Dark Side and become a free thinking Jedi.
@ Jeffery Keown:
ReplyDeleteKeown wrote: "The fleet of sun-orbiting probes we have launched have so far failed to find this incoming electron stream. They find a great outpouring from the sun, but nothing's going in."
False.
And shame on you.
You made a similar comment in the past and in response I provided this link, Solar Wind Electron Halo Depletions at 90° Pitch Angle.
"Up to energies of ~2 keV two suprathermal electron populations can usually be distinguished in the solar wind: (1) an intense beam, known as the strahl, that is directed outward from the Sun along the heliospheric magnetic field, and (2) a more tenuous and roughly isotropic component known as the halo."
"The figure illustrates a newly recognized phenomenon in the ACE SWEPAM suprathermal electron data - depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field. Such symmetric depletions are present on open field lines at least 10% of the time in the ACE data and provide important clues to the origin of the electron halo."
"...produces a more tenuous, sunward-directed population of electrons..."
"Changes in field strength along the field line first focus the backstreaming halo electrons..."
"The 90° PA depletions produce the appearance of counterstreaming electron beams (along the magnetic field) even though no enhancement in particle flux occurs opposite to the strahl."
The 90 degree depletion means that electrons are going into the poles of the Sun, as hypothesized by the 'Electric Sun' model.
Let me suggest that the discussion of this observation & measurement in the link I provided fails to recognize "backdrifting electrons" toward the Sun from the heliosheath because they are so conditioned by the so-called "nuclear furnace" model of the Sun, that they can't conceive of electrons flowing in the way proposed by the 'Electric Sun' model.
What you can't conceive, you most often fail to recognize upon observation.
This is "early days" in terms of satellite in situ probes of the dynamics of the Sun.
Science certainly doesn't have a full 360 degree observation and measurement of the Sun's activities.
(Hopefully that will come.)
Science's understanding of the Sun's dynamics is far from complete.
Jeffery, please don't ignore scientific evidence just because it contradicts your world view, particularly when it has already been brought to your attention.
This failure to acknowledge evidence diminishes your credibility.
And this evidence will surely "bite you on the ass" when you make sweeping statements like the one I quoted from you above.
So you think so-called "galactic cosmic rays" come from the Sun?
ReplyDeleteOf course not. I asked if there are enough of them and you didn't answer.
That's kind of like an answer, really.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteHere is a link for Edit history of the Plasma Cosmology, going back to 2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology&dir=prev&limit=500&action=history
You can go for it, correct where you think are errors, and you can also talk about the errors before correcting (near real-time peer review):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plasma_cosmology
On matter-antimatter:
What you conveniently chose to ignore from my comment is: in space-pockets and can only interface at boundaries – so called double layers?
I bet you have no explanation for space pockets, and we only exist in double layers, and the rest of the matter-antimatter hidden in space pockets are inaccessible, nor do we know the quantity of this stuff, nor it is observable for mere mortals like us, except in the hallucinations of plasmas flowing all around us slowly being fed by matter-antimatter reaction without going to big bang!
Finally, you mean freedom loving Jedi, not the my way or highway of the dark-side enveloped in plasma? Enjoy, another flicker of intelligence!
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: Ah, the master of "cut and paste".
Note I provide links (OIM does too) so that you can also cut and paste to your desire.
Unfortunately, you provide bs, beliefs, and more bs.
Do you have that plasma ball (from Sharper Image?) where you get a plasma flow to your finger when you touch?
Jeffery, please don't ignore scientific evidence just because it contradicts your world view, particularly when it has already been brought to your attention.
ReplyDeleteI'm not ignoring that "evidence"
(for that, see my discussion with Oils on the matter of Tiktalik.)
I've been trying these last few days to bring myself up to speed on Electric Universe. It's not something I've studied deeply, but from what I've read, there is a whole bunch of missing sunward-streaming electrons. When I find them, I'll let you know.
Post script:
ReplyDelete@ Jeffery Keown:
So, Science knows there is a halo of electrons around the Sun and that the electrons get "depleted" at a 90 degree angle to the helio [electro-] magnetic current sheet. In other words, the electrons go into the poles of the Sun along the magnetic field lines emanating from the poles of the Sun.
"depletions of halo electrons centered on and roughly symmetric about 90° pitch angle (PA) relative to the heliospheric magnetic field. Such symmetric depletions are present on open field lines at least 10% of the time in the ACE data and provide important clues to the origin of the electron halo."
Science can detect this process of electron absorbtion near the Sun because of the concentration of electrons is highest in the halo.
But observing & measuring the tenuous electron flow backdrifting toward the Sun from the heliosheath gets progressively harder the farther one goes out from the Sun, itself.
Why?
Because the square kilometer area of the heliosheath surrounding the Sun is truly massive and the density of electron flow (electrons per square meter) from the heliosheath toward the Sun is, initially and consequently, very tenuous, but concentrates as it converges in the smaller space around the Sun.
(The same number of electrons emanating from the heliosheath [a very large square area] will be tenuous at first emanation from the heliosheath then the density will gradually increase as they occupy a much smaller space around the Sun.)
Because this backdrifting electron flow is tenuous, the electrons don't provide a signature that is easily detected. Cosmic rays are easier to detect because they are much larger and more massive (mostly single proton ions). It is only when the heliosheath electron flow converges at the near-space around the Sun and forms the electron halo that present detection aparatus are able to observe & measure these electrons.
(Electrons are hard to detect unless they have an electromagnetic signature that can be differntiated from the background, but tenuous electrons provide a faint signature that science hasn't, yet, developed a sensitive enough aparatus to detect.)
So, where do the halo electrons come from?
From the heliosheath same as the cosmic rays (all particles coming from interstellar space must by definition come through the heliosheath, which is in actuality a double layer insulating the solar system's plasma flow from the differentiated interstellar plasma flow and its attendent Birkeland currents).
So, yes, this post and the article presented support the Electric Universe hypothesis of an 'Electric Sun' model.
KV,
ReplyDeleteI have better things to do with my time than edit war with mentally retarded people like DougWeller and VSmith on Wikipedia.
Ian Tresman obviously tried to be scientific about the edits and you can see for yourself all the dunces were in confederacy against him.
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteKV wrote: "Unfortunately, you [Anaconda] provide bs, beliefs, and more bs."
Well, I provided an actual link (not just an internet citation) to a relevant scientific observation & measurement that bears on the posted (and linked) article.
KV, you, on the other hand, have cut and pasted general citations and passages that have no bearing on the instant post and the linked article.
(KV, your effort, here, has been an attempt at a general "debunking" that fails to address the specifics of the instant post and linked article.)
KV wrote: "If you begin with "plasma", like most EU/plasma guys now advocate, you don't need to worry about matter-antimatter or ambiplasma, and source/sink is eliminated by creating universe so vast! Total bs, and disservice to plasma science, which by the way is also funded heavily by the US Govt. throgh peer review processes.
KV, is Dr. Tony Peratt full of "bs"?
Being that he is one of those plasma guys.
Dr. Anthony Peratt's curriculum vitae:
"Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) Ph.D: EE, 1971, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. Staff Member, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); Guest Physicist, Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975–1977); Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (1985); Los Alamos National Laboratory (1981–), Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs; Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995–1999) where he served a term as Acting Director, National Security, in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Directorate.
Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, Z-pinches, and inertially driven fusion target designs.
He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conf. on Plasma Science 1987–1989; Guest Editor Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 2003; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor Transactions on Plasma Science 1989—; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987–1989; 1995– 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997, named an IEEE Fellow, 1999.
He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997)."
Note that presently Dr. Peratt works at the Los Alamos National laboratory and has since 1981.
And note the sponsors (published at the bottom of the home page) of the website Dr. Peratt is responsible for include the Los Alamos National laboratory: Plasma Universe.
Perhaps a review of Dr. Peratt's website would be helpful.
My two penneth:
ReplyDeleteOliver Manuel and other astrophysicists are correct in my opinion when they say that the Sun is constituted not only of gases. Strictly speaking, the process of Solar accretion must have taken place under the effects of the same laws which rule the Universe and that process must have been driven in the first place by gravity. The array of elements in the Sun have not ordered themselves any differently to all the other systems in the universe, i.e. the heavier elements are in the center with the lighter elements extending out from the Solar core towards the surface, as in an onion skin model, from the heaviest element to the lightest element, hydrogen.
Given that the nuclear fusion reactions take place in the most external strata, specifically at the surface, the Sun needs an external inductor to supply the activation energy necessary to maintain the fusion process. We should keep in mind that nuclear fusion is not spontaneous, but needs huge amounts of energy injected into the system to begin the process. Once initiated, the process must be continually reactivated by an external operator. I think, and it is a speculation, that the energy comes from the center of the galaxy or from other bodies of the galaxy, but it cannot be anything but electricity.
Regarding solar mechanics, I think there is no feasible explanation other than Manuel's theory with regard to the composition of the Sun. By simple gravitational effect, the heavier elements always occupy the core of mixed masses. The accretion process everywhere in the observable universe is delineated through this principle. However, scientific research in this area has been corrupted and many current theories, which have been accepted by graft for the negative purpose of manipulating knowledge, are complete junk. These forces have tried to do the same with other fields such as climatology and biology, for example, with poor results until now.
Best wishes to everyone,
bf
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteYou asked: KV, is Dr. Tony Peratt full of "bs"?
No, Dr. Peratt is not, but you seem to rejoice in it.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteIn my initial post I stated that Wiki provides a quick start on a topic of interest, and that is good. It seems you do not want to correct misguided ways of many, but, it is your choice.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I am familiar with Dr. Parett's many papers and his work and he is not afraid of peer reviews or providing peer feedback to others.
I do not believe you are correct, Anaconda, I keep running into a "Mirroring" effect in the halo.
ReplyDeleteThese backdrifting electrons are solar in origin.
Your electrons are still missing, but keep looking, you might just find them.
@ Jeffery Keown:
ReplyDeleteKeown wrote: "I do not believe you are correct, Anaconda, I keep running into a "Mirroring" effect in the halo.
These backdrifting electrons are solar in origin."
Yes, the "mirror" effect is the authors' interpretation, I agree.
And, the "mirror" effect can't be excluded as a possibility at this "early days" juncture.
But as I state previously in this thread: "What you can't conceive, you most often fail to recognize upon observation."
The "mirror" effect is a hypothesis to explain the electron halo based on the assumption that there is no external source, such as a tenuous electron flow towards the Sun from the heliosheath.
But it is just that, a hypothesis.
Now, could the hypothesis that I presented be wrong?
Yes, of course, it could be wrong and the "mirror" effect could be correct. But at the present time, Science simply doesn't have enough observations & measurements, one way or the other, to rule out either hypothesis.
In fact, I'll agree it could be possible that the electron halo is simply electrons that escaped the various electromagnetic processes of the Sun (escaped the various magnetic fields), but didn't have the energy to escape the Sun's gravity as an emanation of the solar ionic wind.
Likely there are other possible explanations as well.
None should be ruled out at this time.
Including the hypothesis I presented (I don't claim to be the original author of this idea).
Post Script:
ReplyDeleteBut if it is simply a "mirror" effect, then why would these electrons be "depleted" over the solar poles (drawn into the Sun)?
It seems that if all the Sun relies on is an internal power source, "nuclear furnace" model, then all energy and particles (electrons and ions) would be driven away from the source of the energy release.
They get channeled to the poles by magnetic fields, by the same process produces the Aurorae...auroras, aurorases? Aurori?
ReplyDelete@ Jeffery Keown:
ReplyDeleteKeown wrote: "They get channeled to the poles by magnetic fields, by the same process produces the Aurorae...auroras, aurorases? Aurori?"
That process is one where significant energy is injected into the Earth.
Anyway, the Scientific Method is engaged to consider various hypothesis.
Not all cosmic rays carry charges OIM, photons for instance.
ReplyDeleteQF,
ReplyDelete"Not all cosmic rays carry charges OIM, photons for instance."
Photons are not cosmic rays.
As the article states, "Galactic cosmic rays come from outside the solar system. They are subatomic particles--mainly protons but also some heavy nuclei..."
Cosmic rays according to atheist Scripture: "Almost 90% of all the incoming cosmic ray particles are protons, almost 10% are helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% are heavier elements and electrons (beta minus particles)."
This is a good test of Svensmark's Cosmoclimatology theory of global warming. Cosmic rays form cloud nuclei. More rays, more clouds...cooler temperatures.
ReplyDeleteSo far it seems to explain things.
BF
ReplyDeleteWhat unfortunate intials .... still. I agree with your analysis and am still learning. But why do you fall into the gravity well?
Surely the lack of momentum shown by the relatively slow spin of the sun and other stars, shows that gravity had no place in the formation of the initial body? Conservation of momentum, absurdly described by some as a law, means that the accululation of dust etc into a star means massive spin for such a compressed object?
The clouds in your first post are all charged of course. Have you read Paul LaViolette?
Thanks for posting!
Anaconda
ReplyDeleteThanks for helping me understand things at the solar interface better. I will reread it of course.
Not being able to associate the current flow into the sun with other ?stars? in the current is a block for me. In particular, we would have a few years notice of any events that might indeed provide cosmic rays. I have a shovel ready to dig my shelter!
Hi Fungus
ReplyDeleteFor the stream of particles forming the initial body, angular momentum is important only as a statistical magnitude. The accretion impact parameter is small, so angular momentum changes from high to low values over time and is dispersed towards other particles by collisions and towards turbulent oscillations and stream vortexes. As gravity fields are created, large amounts of energy are extracted from the system, easily shedding the angular momentum of individual particles toward other microstates.
All the best, bf