Plasma cosmology

Gokul43201

Why? Has ST approved this?

Not only is Plasma Cosmology not a mainstream cosmological model, it specifically refutes mainstream ideas. That, by the Forum Guidelines, makes it inadmissible here.

Okay so maybe there are dozens of Plasma Cosmology papers in IEEE-Plasma. Probably the only reason for that, however, is that Perratt (a Plasma Cosmology proponent) is/was the Editor for IEEE - Plasma. And moreover, there will always be a small number of non-mainstream articles published by mainstream journals - but that doesn't make their discussion admissible here, by the forum guidelines. There have also been many cases of complete nonsense and crankery published in mainstream journals.

I STRONGLY object to lifting this ban, and it is my opinion that the topic ought to remain banned at least until SpaceTiger approves lifting it.

Astronuc

Current Editor-in-Chief of IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is Steven J. Gitomer, LANL.

http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/Sen...rs.html#Peratt
Explains why his papers were readily published.

iantresman

Indeed. But fortunately the History of the Founding of the Transactions on Plasma Science "insisted on having peer reviewed manuscripts".

As for whether papers "received a rigorous review", I think we could make that criticism of any publication, especially where controversial material is involved.

This sounds rather presumptuous... that cosmologists who have a background in plasma physics necessarily have sufficient knowledge about cosmic plasmas, but terrestrial-plasma physicists are to be doubted. Again, I'll defer to referees.

Good, skepticism makes for a good scientist (no insult or patronizing intended). But I would note that this description sounds like to comes from Wikipedia, which is hardly the most reliable source. The description should describe Plasma Cosmology as not the Standard Cosmology (proper noun, capital letters), rather than non-standard (low-case) which is not necessarily the opposite, and what I would call mischief-making, and a non-biased adjective.

But I generally agree with you, that caution should be the correct approach, and these forums should not be the place to promote Plasma Cosmology.

Astronuc

True, I know this about other publications and conferences, but I'm only concerned with those journals cited with respect to current discussion of Plasma Cosmology.

But of course. Wikipedia is one of a few sites where this description if found.

This is another, perhaps more reliable site.
http://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Non-standard_cosmology
http://www.chemie.de/lexikon/e/Non-s...and_ambiplasma

Evo

Locking pending moderation decision.

Even if this topic was allowed (which doesn't appear to be the case) this is not the appropriate place to be discussing it.

Ivan Seeking

Gokul, we also have a policy that papers published in an approrpriate journal - a respected Cosmology journal in this case - are allowed to be used as a reference. The forum rules specifically allow that. If these papers have been debunked, then sources should be provided.

This is all being discussed in the staff forum.

iantresman

I see parts of the article that are factually incorrect, and the bottom of the chemie.de page notes:

"This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Non-standard_cosmology". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia."

I can provide better references, but I believe that the forum moderators are still discussing whether this a suitable subject for discussion.

Astronuc

Certainly point out the parts which are factually incorrect, and please provide references or citations from scientific and/or peer-reviewed journals. It is certainly distressing to see other forums referencing Wikipedia articles. Interestingly, I may know one of the persons cited on that page.

PlasmaSphere

what going on here then? you've added the plasma cosmology debate to the more speculative Electric sun aspect. I would much prefer if plasma cosmology could be kept separate from the more radical idea's proposed by EU proponents. I guess this conversation did not belong in the forum guidelines though, so it had to be put somewhere.

Idea: why not create a new section here for these ideas that are non standard, but still scientifically acceptable? Maybe divide this skeptisism section into two sub divisions? I dont mean a place for your typical crackpot theories, you could assign what topics are suitable for discussion, some of the more well known scientific theories like steady state models, tired light theories, various plasma theories and other, more maginal, ideas could be discussed. Any new theories that (critically) have academic support from established journals, and relevant science to back up their claims could be posted there and scrutinized fully.

I cant seem to think of anywhere else to put this type of stuff on this site, but i would very much like to have some discussion about it, as so far i dont even know what the mainstream opinion is on Plasma cosmology is past what the admin at wikipedia say about it (which doesn't seem to be a very fair portrayal to say the least). iantresman's site seems one of the most extensive i've seen on PC, and i dont know why wikipedia does not let any of that material onto there.

Ivan Seeking

If there are any more plasma cosmology papers that have been published in a mainstream cosmology journal - not an engineering or plasma journal - now is the time to post them. Anything else would be a violation of the forum rules.

Mainstream means that the journal is found here using the search engine at the bottom of the page.
http://scientific.thomson.com/index.html

PlasmaSphere

here's some of the main papers that i have found published in mainstream cosmology journals;

Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103

Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

How Can Spirals Persist? - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas 2 - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997

Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 207, no. 1, p. 17-26

X-Ray-emitting QSOS Ejected from Arp 220 - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 553, Issue 1, pp. L11-L13.

A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 549, Issue 2, pp. 802-819.

On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

Filamentation of volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite I0 - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2,

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 91, no. 1, March 1983

Magnetosphere-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 144, Issue 1-2, pp. 105-133

Distances of Quasars and Quasar‐like Galaxies: Further Evidence That Quasi‐stellar Objects May Be Ejected from Active Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004


most papers are published in the IEEE transactions on plasma science now, the mainstream journals dont seem too fond of publishing this type of material anymore.



I particularly like this paper on pulsars. Towards the end of the paper they note that that "Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. [...] Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region. This tends to create a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse...."

They also note that the signals given by pulsars are nearly identical to that of trapped ion mechanisms, due to periodic build-up and subsequent discharge of ions in space.

PlasmaSphere

I was reading one of the links provided on the right on the physics post section (http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=229) 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.

iantresman

The Thomson search engine produces a bunch of results to mainstream plasma journals, including for example, the peer-reviewed IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, which includes articles applicable to both plasma astrophysics and cosmology. I'm not aware of any reason to think that the journal standards or the physics, is sub-standard.

iantresman

Since mainstream peer-reviewed plasma journals are disallowed, this is quite difficult.

(Ignoring several plasma journals, even though this is not exclusively Plasma Cosmology), Alfvén gives the proper attribution when he writes:

"As a necessary consequence of the basic arguments it was later assumed that the initial cloud was a mixture of equal amounts of particles and antiparticles. Arguments for assuming such a symmetry were forwarded by many physicists (among them O. Klein) immediately after the discovery of the positron more than thirty years ago" -- Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy, Review of Modern Physics, 37, 652 - 665 (1965)

Independently confirmed (sorry, not a cosmology journal):

"Alfvén had early exposure to the idea of O. Klein (1944) that matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts and that because astronomical observations are unable to distinguish between matter and antimatter they may still exist throughout the universe in equal quantities, although locally of course they have to be separated." -- "Hannes Olof Gosta Alfven. 30 May 1908-2 April 1995" (full text available) in Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Volume 44 - 1 Nov 1998, page 11

Consequently this also can't be Alfvén's "most famous cosmological proposal". This could be open to debate, but his colleague Carl-Gunne Fälthammar considers "His most well-known discovery, [is] what we now call Alfvén waves" -- "In memoriam: Hannes Alfvén" (full text available), Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 234, Issue 2, pp.173-175

And there are many many more examples. For example, the section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" has no citations that actually refer to Plasma Cosmology/Plasma Universe, and is one editor's opinion.

Ivan Seeking

Note that this is still being discussed. Our Cosmologist has been away tending to professional duties, so we need to wait until he can review all of this. Also, we still have other staff members chiming in on this. I or someone will post the results of our discussion. Until then, please feel free to post and discuss the relevant papers.

One thing that would help is if someone would take the papers linked and show excerpts that specifically demonstrate that the link applies to Plasma Cosmology.

Again, now is your chance to make your case. But in order to avoid any implication of cross discipline problems, let's keep it to the Cosmology journals. Obviously plasma journals can still be used to support specific claims or theories about plasmas.

PlasmaSphere

to briefly outline out some of the main differences of opinion between the two, the obvious difference is that people who consider themselves plasma cosmologists think that the electrodynamic nature of the universe plays a much bigger role than accepted by mainstream scientific opinion. Mainstream science in contrast looks on the universe as electrically neutral and purely mechanical.

A quote from Anthony Peratt on his opinion for the differences between the two and why PC has not been accepted by mainstream science;

And this paper by Donald Scott does well to illustrate some of the differences in opinion that have developed between electrical engineers and astronomy; Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos - IEEE Transactions on plasma science, VOL. 35, NO. 4, August 2007. It is not specifically about plasma cosmology, it is much more an an overview of established electrical processes and their difference to how mainstream astronomers describe them in space.

also this is a good page for some reviewed plasma cosmology material.

Edit by Ivan: Inappropriate references deleted.

iantresman

I think the problem is that we need to differentiate between:

• Klein's cosmology, who introduced one of the ideas of a symmetric matter-anti-matter universe. Alfvén wrote: "As a consequence of Dirac’s theory, Klein [12], [13] suggested that the universe might be matter-antimatter symmetric."(ref)
• Klein-Alfvén cosmology, who investigated it further (Ref)
• Plasma Cosmology (Ref)(Ref) Alfvén wrote that "The Plasma Universe model introduces important new arguments in this discussion."(Ref)
• The Plasma Universe (which may not necessarily involve in cosmology) (Ref)(Ref)(Ref)
• Plasma Astrophysics

There are many plasma phenomena that are common to all five areas, and some which be may unique to others. I get the feeling that the contentious bit is the matter-anti-matter universe, which applies to Klein and Plasma Cosmology, but not to the Plasma Universe.