View Single Post
Jan7-08, 08:53 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,014
Quote Quote by PlasmaSphere View Post
I was reading one of the links provided on the right on the physics post section ( and i thought it did well to illustrate the fundamental difference between the two cosmologies, not from a scientific viewpoint, more a philisophical viewpoint.

Plasma Cosmology is a disciplinary framework which has a different set of basic assumptions and thought processes which form it's underlying scientific and philisophical foundation on which to build further meaning. It is by definition a different paradigm than that of the standard Big Bang cosmology.

At the basis of Plasma Cosmology are many ideas which integrate into a semi-coherent world-view that is quite different than that formed within the Big Bang framework. As an example, within Plasma Cosmology is the idea that Cosmogony and Eschatology of the universe as a whole is not entirely within the realm of humanly verifiable knowledge, hence the question of how the universe as a whole began or will end takes a back seat to the more verifiable question 'what processes are at work currently, that we can measure and study.' The universe is viewed as 'eternal' for all we know, and this view can have an effect on ones understanding of himself within the universal processes that are constantly ongoing.

Plasma Cosmology appears to be a Metaphysical Cosmology that attempts to incorporate and reconcile some aspects of process philosophy with the parts of Physical Cosmology that are not inherent to and dependent on the BB paradigm. Cosmogony of the universe itself (as opposed to solar systems, which are considered) takes a back seat in this framework, as the focus is switched to the current processes and manifestations of observables.

Process philosophy comes into play in a much greater extent under this paradigm. The gravitational, object oriented viewpoint is replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint.

I think thats why i personally find this concept so appealing, instead of putting limits on the beggining and end of the universe, it leaves that question open and focusses much more on present events that we can be more sure of.
Another post I'd missed, sorry.

In light of the post immediately before this, PlasmaSphere, I must say I'm quite confused.

First, I can't quite square the inclusion of so many 'Arp et al.' papers in your list with this post of yours that I am quoting; for example, how can you assert that the Arp-Narlikar VMH is consistent with "[a] gravitational, object oriented viewpoint [being] replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint"? What part of the VMH is "electromagnetic"?

Second, even more astonishing is this: "instead of putting limits on the beggining and end of the universe, it [plasma cosmology] leaves that question open and focusses much more on present events that we can be more sure of". I mean, not only is most of astrophysics focussed on "present events that we can be more sure of", but to strongly imply, as you do, that "an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint" is weak or absent in contemporary astrophysics displays a breath-taking ignorance of the field (perhaps you relied too heavily on material from the 'resource list' you linked to?).

For example, ADS lists 3,261 abstracts1 (mostly papers, some conference proceedings, some books) with "MHD"2 in the title. To take just one example (the link is to the arXiv preprint; the MNRAS keywords are "accretion, accretion discs , instabilities , MHD , waves , methods: analytical , methods: numerical"):
Exact shering box solutions of MHD flows with resistivity, viscosity and cooling
Authors: P. Lesaffre, S. A. Balbus
(Submitted on 10 Sep 2007)

Abstract: Axisymmetric incompressible modes of the magneto-rotational instability (MRI) with a vertical wavenumber are exact solutions of the non-linear local equations of motion for a disk (shearing box). They are referred to as "channel solutions". Here, we generalize a class of these solutions to include energy losses, viscous, and resistive effects. In the limit of zero shear, we recover the result that torsional Alfv\'en waves are exact solutions of the non-linear equations. Our method allows the extension of these solutions into the dissipative regime.
These new solutions serve as benchmarks for simulations including dissipation and energy loss, and to calibrate numerical viscosity and resistivity in the Zeus3D code. We quantify the anisotropy of numerical dissipation and compute its scaling with time and space resolution. We find a strong dependence of the dissipation on the mean magnetic field that may affect the saturation state of the MRI as computed with Zeus3D. It is also shown that elongated grid cells generally preclude isotropic dissipation and that a Courant time step smaller than that which is commonly used should be taken to avoid spurious anti-diffusion of magnetic field.
And don't get me started on the mis-characterisation of "the Big Bang framework"! For starters, given the mutual incompatibility of GR (General Relativity) and the Standard Model, and the high likelihood that we won't be able to study phenomena where that incompatibility becomes observable for a thousand years or more yet, that framework cannot be about "how the universe as a whole began or will end".

However, most alarming is your apparent desire to restrict the scope of the sciences of plasma physics, astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology. For example, you seem to be saying that the CMB (cosmic microwave background) should not be studied - despite it being a quintessential 'observable' - simply because it is "inherent to [...] the BB paradigm".

But perhaps I simply misunderstood your point; if so, would you mind clarifying please?

1 And if we search on "MHD" among the keywords, the number rises to over 11,000
2 Magnetohydrodynamics - in 1970, Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work on this