<p>Define "current".</p>

<p>If one particle makes a current, there are lots of particles that hit the Earth at energies much more than 0.98c, most famously the "<a href="http://www.cosmic-ray.org/reading/flyseye.html#SEC10" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Oh my god particle</a>" </p>

<p>If you have many particles travelling at these speeds you don't have a river, more a beam, or a jet or particles. These are produced by active accretion disks around black holes. </p>

<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/dQjwT.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/dQjwT.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<p>In this combination image from Nasa (the background is a visible light image from hubble, the pink lobes are from the VLA, a radio telescope), an active radio galaxy is producing two jets, that are much longer than the size of the galaxy. These consist of particles that have been accelerated by the black hole's gravity and shot into space. A ship would find it hard to use the energy in these jets. Particles travelling at close to the speed of light are high energy radiation. A space ship unlucky enough to pass unprotected through the beams would be irradiated. I haven't done the maths, but the dose would probably be enough to kill anyone on board. It's hard to extract useful energy from anything so violent.</p>

<p>However if you are looking for random currents of charge, curving between the stars, and interstellar sailors tacking and jibing betweent them, you may be out of luck.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-04T23:12:49.513Z
Where did the "Oh my god particle" expression come from ?  Just curious.  Thanks.
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-05T02:16:36.783Z
@StephenG A lab detected a single, extremely high energy particle and the guy who saw it wrote the era-equivalent of "OMG! O_O" on the printout.  No comparable signal has ever been observed, and equipment error/malfunction is still a plausible explanation.
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T13:32:58.507Z
@zibadawatimmy Wrong. At least fifteen similar events have since been confirmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle
Max
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T13:50:06.670Z
@Max To quote that: [citation needed].  Some of the the other citations elsewhere make oblique references to such detections, but I'm having trouble hunting down something more definitive and clear.
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T15:53:39.030Z
@zibadawatimmy Well, either way, particles that are on the scale of ~200 times less energetic than the OMG particle hit the Earth's atmosphere many times a second. I'd think that's at the bare minimum 'comparable'.
Max
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T16:00:06.590Z
@Max I definitely wouldn't say that being off by two orders of magnitude is comparable. The particles in excess of 60 exa-eV are exceptional, and explaining them may similarly explain the OMG particle (which was like 320 exa-eV if I remember right), at least.
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T16:13:01.460Z
@zibadawatimmy Actually, I have now found a source which says that 27 particles of energy 60 exa-eV have been detected only between 2004 and 2007 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0911). The OMG particle was 300 exa-eV (at least, according to Wikipedia). We've already reduced that number to less than an order of magnitude.
Max
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T16:17:29.500Z
@zibadawatimmy Now, even using the Boltzmann distribution, which is obviously likely unsensible and provides an underestimation in comparison to the Normal distribution, I get that such an event would take place roughly every 16 years. So that alone suggests the OMG particle wasn't a statistical fluke.
Max
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T16:32:13.923Z
@Max Boltzmann distribution of *what*?
zibadawa timmy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-25T17:34:29.443Z
Comments are not for general discussion. If you have new question, please ask it.
James K
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-04T22:00:40.860Z
2017-03-04T22:00:40.860Z
James K
<p><a href="https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/17244/ftl-travel-is-impossible-how-is-interstellar-trade-possible/71030?noredirect=1#comment211727_71030">Some suggest</a> that there might be currents of charged particles moving at 0.98c in interstellar space.  Since this is tainted by association with the crack “Electric Universe” cosmology, my first impression is to be dismissive of the possibility.</p>

<p>But, proponents point to current observations and ideas, so I thought I’d check on this claim in and of itself.  Given what we do know, are such currents possible or excluded?  And, if possible, could they be massive enough to propell a space craft bearing a large sail?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-05T00:10:40.157Z
What are you talking about? Please give a source that isn't just a comment in a SE discussion.
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-05T03:19:51.977Z
@RobJeffries if I knew ofsuch a thing I wouldnot be asking.  But I know it’s a fallicy to claim that there's no such thing because I personally have nit heard of it.  I want more authorative input before calling it BS.
JDługosz
<cosmology><interstellar-medium><interstellar-travel><plasma-physics>
Could there be massive charged “rivers” in interstellar space?
JDługosz
# Could there be massive charged “rivers” in interstellar space?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-04)

[Some suggest](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/17244/ftl-travel-is-impossible-how-is-interstellar-trade-possible/71030?noredirect=1#comment211727_71030) that there might be currents of charged particles moving at 0.98c in interstellar space. Since this is tainted by association with the crack “Electric Universe” cosmology, my first impression is to be dismissive of the possibility.

But, proponents point to current observations and ideas, so I thought I’d check on this claim in and of itself. Given what we do know, are such currents possible or excluded? And, if possible, could they be massive enough to propell a space craft bearing a large sail?

**Tags:** cosmology, interstellar-medium, interstellar-travel, plasma-physics

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What are you talking about? Please give a source that isn't just a comment in a SE discussion.  
> **username_0**: @RobJeffries if I knew ofsuch a thing I wouldnot be asking.  But I know it’s a fallicy to claim that there's no such thing because I personally have nit heard of it.  I want more authorative input before calling it BS.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-04. Score: 2

Define "current".

If one particle makes a current, there are lots of particles that hit the Earth at energies much more than 0.98c, most famously the "[Oh my god particle](http://www.cosmic-ray.org/reading/flyseye.html#SEC10)"

If you have many particles travelling at these speeds you don't have a river, more a beam, or a jet or particles. These are produced by active accretion disks around black holes.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/dQjwT.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/dQjwT.jpg)

In this combination image from Nasa (the background is a visible light image from hubble, the pink lobes are from the VLA, a radio telescope), an active radio galaxy is producing two jets, that are much longer than the size of the galaxy. These consist of particles that have been accelerated by the black hole's gravity and shot into space. A ship would find it hard to use the energy in these jets. Particles travelling at close to the speed of light are high energy radiation. A space ship unlucky enough to pass unprotected through the beams would be irradiated. I haven't done the maths, but the dose would probably be enough to kill anyone on board. It's hard to extract useful energy from anything so violent.

However if you are looking for random currents of charge, curving between the stars, and interstellar sailors tacking and jibing betweent them, you may be out of luck.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Where did the "Oh my god particle" expression come from ?  Just curious.  Thanks.  
> **username_4**: @StephenG A lab detected a single, extremely high energy particle and the guy who saw it wrote the era-equivalent of "OMG! O_O" on the printout.  No comparable signal has ever been observed, and equipment error/malfunction is still a plausible explanation.  
> **username_5**: @zibadawatimmy Wrong. At least fifteen similar events have since been confirmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle  
> **username_4**: @username_5 To quote that: [citation needed].  Some of the the other citations elsewhere make oblique references to such detections, but I'm having trouble hunting down something more definitive and clear.  
> **username_5**: @zibadawatimmy Well, either way, particles that are on the scale of ~200 times less energetic than the OMG particle hit the Earth's atmosphere many times a second. I'd think that's at the bare minimum 'comparable'.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 I definitely wouldn't say that being off by two orders of magnitude is comparable. The particles in excess of 60 exa-eV are exceptional, and explaining them may similarly explain the OMG particle (which was like 320 exa-eV if I remember right), at least.  
> **username_5**: @zibadawatimmy Actually, I have now found a source which says that 27 particles of energy 60 exa-eV have been detected only between 2004 and 2007 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.0911). The OMG particle was 300 exa-eV (at least, according to Wikipedia). We've already reduced that number to less than an order of magnitude.  
> **username_5**: @zibadawatimmy Now, even using the Boltzmann distribution, which is obviously likely unsensible and provides an underestimation in comparison to the Normal distribution, I get that such an event would take place roughly every 16 years. So that alone suggests the OMG particle wasn't a statistical fluke.  
> **username_4**: @username_5 Boltzmann distribution of *what*?  
> **username_2**: Comments are not for general discussion. If you have new question, please ask it.  

---

