Magnetic field lines representing the earth’s magnetic field. Image from http://www.nasa.gov.
The earth generates a giant magnetic field. The magnetic field produced by the earth causes a compass needle to point north. Why does the earth have a magnetic field? Scientists agree it is the result of electrical currents generated in the earth’s core. Two different models have been developed to explain the origin and behavior of Earth’s magnetic field: the dynamo theory and the rapid decay theory.
In the dynamo theory, the convective (heat-driven) motion of electrically conductive fluid (liquid iron) in the earth’s outer core generates an electric current, which produces a magnetic field. This magnetic field interacts with the moving fluid to produce an additional magnetic field. These combined fields result in the earth’s overall planetary field. The rotation of Earth is what provides the needed motion to sustain the magnetic field. This theory is the most popular model of magnetic fields, and it allows a magnetic field to be sustained over long periods of time, even billions of years.
A young-earth creationist physicist, Dr. Russell Humphreys, developed another model of planetary magnetic fields based on the Bible. This model could be called the “rapid-decay theory.” The rapid decay theory assumes that the earth’s magnetic field is generated by decaying electrical currents in the core. According to Humphreys, the earth was initially created with all of its particle spins aligned, which produced a magnetic field. Once the spins become disoriented, an electric current would form, maintaining this strong magnetic field. Because of the electrical resistance in the core, however, the electrical current would decline over time, reducing the strength of the magnetic field over time. Thus, today’s magnetic field is simply a remnant of the initial magnetic field at creation. Interestingly, in order for this model to be correct, the earth must be no older than 8,700 years.
If we test these models using the scientific method, which model can we conclude is the stronger scientific hypothesis?
Mercury. Since the dynamo model depends on rotational speed, Mercury was not expected to have a magnetic field. As one article stated:
Because of the low rotation rate Mercury was not expected to generate a field.1
In 1974, it was found that Mercury did possess a magnetic field. Thus, the dynamo model incorrectly predicted the lack of a magnetic field on Mercury. The rapid-decay model, on the other hand, has no difficulty explaining the existence of Mercury’s field, since it predicts that all planets started out with magnetic fields.
The rapid-decay model also predicts that the strength of a planetary magnetic field decays over time. In 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft flew by Mercury and measured the strength of its magnetic field. In 1984, Humphreys predicted the amount by which Mercury’s magnetic field would decrease over time. In 2008, the field was measured again by NASA’s Messenger spacecraft, and that measurement appears to confirm the prediction of his model, at least better than the dynamo model.
Photo of the surface of Mars, where evidence of a past magnetic field was found in its crustal rocks. Image from http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA00563_modest.jpg.
The moon and Mars. The dynamo theory predicted that Mars should have a planetary magnetic field,2 but it does not. In contrast, the rapid-decay model is consistent with the lack of a planetary field on Mars. In addition, the rapid-decay model predicted that Mars would show evidence of a prior magnetic field (evidence of a past magnetic field can be detected in remanent magnetization in crustal rocks).3 In 1999, this evidence of a past magnetic field on Mars was found, confirming Humphreys’s prediction from 1984.
The dynamo theory predicts that if a planet starts out with a magnetic field, that field should be sustained over long periods of time. Thus, the fact that Mars shows evidence of a past (i.e., crustal) magnetic field is surprising to dynamo theorists, as Mars would be expected to still have its magnetic field today if it had one at all in the past.
Since the dynamo model depends on rotation and the amount of conducting material in the core, the moon was expected to possess no magnetic field at any time in its history. However, evidence was found for a past magnetic field preserved in its crustal rocks, just as on Mars. Thus, the dynamo model incorrectly predicted the lack of any magnetic field in the moon’s past. On the other hand, the rapid-decay model’s expectations fit these observations perfectly, since it predicts that all bodies start out with a magnetic field, and that a body like the moon would lose its magnetic field rather quickly due to its specific properties. Thus, we would expect to find evidence of a past magnetic field in its crust if the rapid-decay model is correct.
Uranus and Neptune. When Humphreys developed the rapid-decay theory in 1984, the magnetic fields of two planets, Uranus and Neptune, had not been measured yet. Using his model, Humphreys predicted the strength of the magnetic fields of those planets. The predictions were on the order of 1024 J/T (joules/tesla) for both planetary fields. When NASA’s Voyager II spacecraft flew by the planets, they measured the magnetic fields of those planets, and the measurements confirmed Humphreys’s predictions to within an order of magnitude.
In contrast, the dynamo model initially predicted a weak or nonexistent magnetic field for Uranus. This is because the planetary dynamo is expected to generate much heat, which should be detectable as heat flow from the surface of the planet. However, Uranus has an extremely low heat flux. As a result, dynamo theorists recognized this a problem and tried to “adjust” the model when they began to see evidence for a magnetic field on the planet.4 Even after the existence of a magnetic field on Uranus was confirmed, dynamo theorists continued to try to reconcile these data with their models.5
Magnetic Reversals on Earth. There is strong geological evidence that the Earth’s magnetic field has reversed multiple times in the past. This means that at certain times in the past, a compass needle would have pointed south instead of north. Both the dynamo model and the rapid-decay model agree that the Earth’s magnetic field can reverse. However, the old-earth dynamo model predicts that reversals generally take place at a rate of once every 1,000 years or even tens or hundreds of thousands of years. The reversal itself is thought to take at least 1,000 years to occur. The rapid-decay model predicts that a reversal would happen as fast as once per week on average, during the Biblical global flood. In 1989, geologists examined thin lava flows that showed evidence of magnetic variation that took place within weeks.6 Further evidence for reversals happening in a few years were discovered later by other geologists.7
Which model predicted these data more accurately? Well, the young-earth model predicted reversals happening once per week. The data do not fit this prediction exactly, but it is close. The data from the two studies in Footnote 6 indicate that at the measured rate for the change in direction of the magnetic field, a full magnetic reversal could happen over a period of 60 days. Thus, the young-earth model was off by the following factor:
60 days / 7 days = ~8.57
If we are generous to the old-earth model and assume that reversals take place once every 1,000 years, we can calculate that its prediction is off by a factor of:
1000 years = 365,000 days / 60 days = 6,083
Thus, the old-earth model for magnetic fields was wrong by a factor of over 6,000 in its prediction! The young-earth model’s prediction differed only slightly from the data, by a factor of 8.57. Likewise, for the study in Footnote 7, the young-earth model is off by a factor of 180, and the old-earth model is off by a factor of between 285 and 5,780.8 Either way, the young-earth model’s predictions were far more successful than the old-earth model’s predictions in these instances.
In summary, the young-earth model of planetary magnetic fields based on the Bible and developed by Humphreys is consistent with current observations of the moon and planets’ magnetic fields. In addition, it has predicted certain data accurately before they were measured. In contrast, the old-earth dynamo model has incorrectly predicted the existence/non-existence and strength of some of the planets’ magnetic fields. Clearly, the young-earth model for planetary magnetic fields is a much stronger scientific hypothesis than the old-earth model. Once again, the data fit the young-earth view better than the old-earth view.
—————
1 Parker, E. N. 1983. Magnetic fields in the cosmos. Scientific American, 249(2):44-54 (August), p. 51.
2 Ibid, p. 52.
3 In his 1984 paper, Humphreys wrote, “Older igneous rocks from Mercury or Mars should have natural remanent magnetization, as the Moon’s rocks do.”
4 Smoluchowski, R. 1979. “Origin of the magnetic fields in the giant planets.” Physics Of The Earth And Planetary Interiors 20, no. 2-4: 247-254. Link. Torbett, M., and R. Smoluchowski. 1980. “Hydromagnetic dynamo in the cores of Uranus and Neptune.” Nature [London] 286, no. 5770: 237-239. Link. Smoluchowski, R. “The Magnetic Field of Uranus.” Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 10, p.577. Link.
5 Sabine Stanley and Jeremy Bloxham. “Numerical dynamo models of Uranus’ and Neptune’s magnetic fields.” Icarus. Volume 184, Issue 2, October 2006, Pages 556–572.
6 Coe, R.S. and Prevot, M., “Evidence Suggesting Extremely Rapid Field Variation During a Geomagnetic Reversal,” Earth and Planetary Science 92:292-298, 1989; Coe, R.S., Prevot, M., and Camps, P., “New Evidence for Extremely Rapid Change of the Geomagnetic Field During a Reversal,” Nature 374:687-692, 1995.
7 Bogue, S. W., and J. M. G. Glen (2010), “Very rapid geomagnetic field change recorded by the partial remagnetization of a lava flow,” Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L21308, doi:10.1029/2010GL044286.
8 The reversals in Footnote 6 took place at the rate of 1 degree/week, or 1 reversal/180 weeks = 1260 days. 1260 days (measurement) / 7 days (young-earth prediction) = 180. For the old-earth model, 1000 years = 360,000 days (old-earth prediction) / 1260 days (measurement) = 285.7. If we use a maximum time of 20,000 years for a magnetic flip (e.g., see this article), the old-earth model’s prediction would be off by a factor of 20,000 years / 3.46 years (180 weeks for one reversal) = 5,780.
scienceandevidence 
watch this video humphryes data has been debunked
Thank you for your comment, Jacob. However, that video doesn’t even come close to debunking Dr. Humphreys’ magnetic field model. Humphreys has noted (see Addendum in the link) that the field intensity of certain components of the earth’s magnetic field can increase even if the net energy of the field is steadily decreasing.
Also, the fact that Humphreys got an idea for his model from a statement in the Bible is irrelevant. The scientific merit of a model is based on its predictive power, not on the origin of the idea or who came up with it. The predictive power of Humphreys’ model is indeed strong, as my post above documents. In addition, the Father of Oceanography, Matthew Maury, was inspired by a statement in the Bible that led to his discovery of ocean currents.
@Jacob
Error, Misquote, and Huge Blunder.
Interesting video. As a guy “on the fence” there are a couple things that I noticed in the video, one of which seems to be a HUGE blunder or two on Tony Reed’s part (unless I’m missing something):
First the smaller one:
At 8:17, Tony Reed seems to claim that Humphreys did not address the margin of error bars in his 2008 article about mercury, but I have the 2008 article pulled up right in front of me and he actually does address them, in paragraph 7 & 8ish and also in a footnote.
Most concerning, at 6:42 Tony Reed begins a section about the sun’s magnetic field. He mentions that Humphreys thinks it has been decreasing over time while the dynamo model should result in an increase. Reed then seems to “cherry pick” (to use his own word) a finding published by Kuridze in the Astrophysical Journal and seems to even deliberately MISQUOTE the paper in an important way. He says the paper found that the sun’s magnetic field had flares “increasing the sun’s magnetic field by 10 times it’s previously observed strength”. This is VERY misleading. The paper in question does NOT say this. The paper in question says a few things:
#1 Kuridze’s team says “These measurements are substantially higher than a number of previous estimates” not “the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is 10 times higher than previously observed”. That’s actually a super important difference and I’ll explain why below.
#2 CORONAL flaring loops were measured and Kuridze’s team explains that they had a unique opportunity to measure these in a way that is more accurate and precise than previous methods (including a little bit of luck).
#3 Their findings seem to indicate that measurements of the sun’s CORONAL field have actually, in a general sense, been lower in the past than the more true figures (due to the measuring… NOT an actual change in strength today from years or decades ago as Reed tries to imply).
To clarify, this does NOT mean (nor did Kuridze ever claim) that there has been a change or increase in real values of coronal field strength between then and now… what he seems to be describing is an across the board discrepancy which, to make a crude example, would be similar to discovering that your thermometer has been off by 10 degrees for 20 years due to a mechanical malfunction, and so you need to add 10 degrees to ALL your previous temperature recordings. This is NOT the same as saying the temperature has gone UP 10 degrees in real life since 20 years ago. It means ALL readings were off by 10 degrees.
How Tony Reed could have missed this while reading the paper is beyond me, perhaps he didn’t read the paper and simply read an article *about* the paper (and we know how blog and magazine articles often deliberately sensationalize the findings in journal papers).
Literally the entire paper is about measurements, accuracy, calibration, and the comparison of which telescopes provide the most accurate understanding of coronal magnetism. The actual final concluding line of the paper (not including the disclaimers and acknowledgements) literally ends with “Furthermore, the result is important for upcoming new-generation ground-based solar telescopes such as 4 m Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope (DKIST) and European Solar Telescope (EST; first lights in 2020 and 2027, respectively). These telescopes will have advanced chromospheric polarimetric capabilities, which, as demonstrated here, can provide powerful diagnostics for the coronal magnetic field.”
NOWHERE in the paper Reed mentioned is there a claim that the sun’s magnetic field is strengthening over time.
And furthermore, this unfortunate mishandling of facts by Reed seems to indicate he does not understand the concept of magnetic vs coronal fields.
The Coronal field and the magnetic field are NOT the same thing, although they are of course related. The coronal field is the outermost layer of the sun’s atmosphere. It has it’s own magnetic fields (or “sub fields one could argue) and the activities and strengths of that field are affected by many things and NOT an indication of the strength or activity of the Sun’s magnetic field (although the sun’s magnetic field can be said to be the “source” of the coronal field and the coronal field is considered a “part” or layer of the field in a certain sense and they can sometimes be correlated).
This is an incredibly important distinction and it is why Kuridze went out of his way to keep using the phrase “Coronal field coronal field coronal field” in this paper — a distinction Tony Reed either didn’t notice or didn’t understand. because he, in his video, goes out of his way to say “sun’s magnetic field” over and over.
This is an elementary rookie mistake.
Although there sometimes is a correlation between the sun’s magnetic field in general and the coronal field, this is not always the case and in fact the coronal field is known to behave in wild and “erratic” ways because of the number of factors that can cause activity and fluctuation in it.
The coronal field is a complex, dynamic system of magnetic fields that is constantly changing due to the Sun’s rotation and other factors. It is responsible for many of the phenomena we observe on the Sun, such as solar flares and coronal mass ejections.
An increase in the strength of the coronal field during a coronal flare does NOT prove an increase in the magnetic field. Coronal flares are caused by disturbances (not necessarily growth) in the Sun’s magnetic field, and they can cause the coronal field to increase in strength. However, the coronal field can also increase in strength due to other factors, such as the movement of plasma within the Sun’s atmosphere, without necessarily indicating a change in the underlying magnetic field. In fact, to really drive the point home (and demonstrate how bizarre Tony Reed’s mistake is) it can very often be the OPPOSITE of true. namely, it is also possible for the sun’s magnetic field to change WITHOUT a corresponding change in the coronal field.
In fact there are even studies that indicate that even the Photosphere and the Corona do not always correlate.
So even if Kuridze had been referring to a real increase in strength value over time rather than a calibration or measurement inaccuracy that applies across the board (which is what he in fact meant), it would not even have been about the sun’s magnetic field in general, but about coronal activity.
Further more, anyone who understands the sun’s 11 year cycle as well as the proposed 200 year cycles and greater cycles understands that you cannot take crazy spikes in activity or strength from isolated incidents during those cycles and interpret them as evidence of a general or persistent “net” growth over time.
The fact is, there are a LOT of scientists who believe the sun’s magnetic field is weakening overall based in part on analysis of highs and lows over the course of several 11 year cycles as well as mysterious “behind schedule” instances during the last flip, and even correlated with solar-acoustic data indicating a gradual thinning of the sun’s surface layers. This idea has persisted AFTER 2017 when Kuridze published his article (which, again, had NOTHING to do with what Tony Reed tried to imply it was saying). I’m talking scientists from credible institutions like the National Solar Observatory, the Space Science Institute, Birmingham University, NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, and the ISRO.
With all of that in mind, go back to 6:42 and watch the section about the sun, and see how Reed throws in the kuridze Astrophysical Journal paper as evidence that the sun’s magnetic field is actually growing… It’s bizarre and hypocritical cherry picking and deliberate misrepresentation. Its as though he knew he wanted a piece of “evidence” to prove a points, so he did a clumsy google search and grabbed the first paper he could find without actually reading what it said.
Anyway, those are the only things that I noticed, but that frankly makes me wonder how much else from the video was either false or misleading… and makes me wonder how seriously to take his other videos.