How Does Plasma Cosmology Explain the Sun's Function?

[henxan]

I found a video called "how the sun really works" on youtube.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk"

Well. This did not make much sense for me. Is there something to be debunked?

 

[PlasmaSphere]

This an emerging area of cosmology. There is a rich history of alternative plasma based ideas in the cosmos as opposed to current gravitationally driven models. It started with the work of kristian birkeland and his famous terella experiments, where he was able to replicate many aspects of the sun by using an electriclaly charged anode. He replicated the plasma torus, sunspots, solar flares and many other things. This creasted a problem for astronomers who thought the sun is largely neutral, but the correlation between his experiments and the sun are hard to deny. Most scientists dismiss his findings to this day. http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

There is a brilliant site on electrical activity on the sun at; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Electric_Stars , with plenty of refernces to science papers.

A Star and hence our Sun, is a completely ionized ball of plasma, consisting of electrons and ions (there are almost no gases). The movement of the plasma produces strong magnetic fields and corresponding electric currents.

The importance of electricity in solar modelling has been highlighted by a number of scientists. While there is currently no complete electrical theory of stars, there have been numerous evidence of electrical activity on the sun. Interpretations of this electricity are varied, with electrical activity being attributed to solar flares[1], sunspots[2][3] and various other solar phenomenon. Some plasma cosmologists have recently proposed that the sun may not be a disconnected body which consumes itself over its lifetime, but may receive its energy from its galactic environment delivered by particles in an external circuit via cosmic electrical circuits described first by Hannes Alfven

They cite well over twenty peer reviewed papers in support for an electrical model of stars. One of the most fascinating aspects of it is that Z-pinch fusion, in plasma similar to what the sun is made of, has been achieved in tests on earth, whereas continual nuclear fusion has still never been achieved. Talk of electricity and plasma in space are widespread in astronomy at the moment, but there has been no complete electrical circuit of stars yet put forward. Nobel laureate Hannes alfven proposed a model using a heliospheric current circuit, but i think that particular theory was sidelined for more mainstream ideologies.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well. This did not make much sense for me. Is there something to be debunked?

It is not an emerging area of cosmology, but it is nonsense and an emerging area of crackpottery.

Note that this has now been added to the list of topics banned at PF.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

 

[iantresman]

Edit by Ivan: The posts below were merged into this thread from the forum feedback sticky at the top of the page.

For subjects that are maginal, we have experts on the staff who determine what is and is not appropriate material.

And beyond that, any paper published in an appropriate mainstream journal, like Science, or Nature, may be used as a reference here at PF. Being published by YouTube, or Cosmology papers published in some obscure engineering journal, do not qualify as subjects for discussion. In effect we allow the journals to do the debunking for us. If you have a plasma cosmology paper to reference from a major cosmology journal, then post it. If not, then consider why that might be.

• Yes, it makes sense that peer-reviewed journal do the "debunking". Can you provide some citations that criticize or debunk Plasma Cosmology?
  .
• You mentioned Science, or Nature as benchmarks. Hannes Alfvén, one of the fathers of Plasma Cosmology (later incorporated into the Plasma Universe), had over twenty articles published in Nature, and about a dozen in Science, as well as articles in Astrophysics and Space Science (ref), including articles specifically on Plasma Cosmology. ie. It seems that their peer-review was not unfavourable.
  .
• August 2007 saw the publications of 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, which included peer-reviewed articles on Plasma Cosmology / Plasma Universe.
  .
• The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization with more than 360,000 members in around 175 countries. Their IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who publishes the Transactions on Plasma Science, has about 3000 professional engineers and scientist, which is hardly an obscure number in comparison to, say, the American Astronomical Society has about 6,500 members that includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers.

__________
Ian Tresman

 

[Ivan Seeking]

• Yes, it makes sense that peer-reviewed journal do the "debunking". Can you provide some citations that criticize or debunk Plasma Cosmology?
  .
• You mentioned Science, or Nature as benchmarks. Hannes Alfvén, one of the fathers of Plasma Cosmology (later incorporated into the Plasma Universe), had over twenty articles published in Nature, and about a dozen in Science, as well as articles in Astrophysics and Space Science (ref), including articles specifically on Plasma Cosmology. ie. It seems that their peer-review was not unfavourable.
  .
• August 2007 saw the publications of 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, which included peer-reviewed articles on Plasma Cosmology / Plasma Universe.
  .
• The IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization with more than 360,000 members in around 175 countries. Their IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society who publishes the Transactions on Plasma Science, has about 3000 professional engineers and scientist, which is hardly an obscure number in comparison to, say, the American Astronomical Society has about 6,500 members that includes physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers.

__________
Ian Tresman

As I said, if a paper has been published in a mainstream journal that is applicable to the subject, then it may be referenced here at PF.

The last time that I checked, the IEEE was not in the Cosmology business. So unless they are venturing into areas that they are not qualified to address, I must assume that the papers published do not promote the theories that we have seen posted here. Plasma in and of itself is a subject for the IEEE; Cosmology is not.

What's more, the source most often referenced here wrt Plasma Cosmology is YouTube.

Finally, journals do their debunking by not publishing a theory. This is elementary, so I have to wonder about your demand for a debunking reference.

 

[iantresman]

The last time that I checked, the IEEE was not in the Cosmology business. So unless they are venturing into areas that they are not qualified to address, I must assume that the papers published do not promote the theories that we have seen posted here. Plasma in and of itself is a subject for the IEEE; Cosmology is not.

It is the referees of a journal that decide whether an article's area of investigation is relevant. The argument would imply that a cosmology journal is not qualified to discuss plasma. I recall that Hannes Alfvén was but an electrical engineer, had to publish in many obscure journals, and he won the Nobel Prize for his discoveries of magnetohydrodynamics that included their application space plasmas.

Finally, journals do their debunking by not publishing a theory. This is elementary, so I have to wonder about your demand for a debunking reference.

That is called "ignoring"; To presuppose that by not presenting any evidence whatsoever, is "debunking", is not science. However, we could assume that an ignored theory is not an accepted theory, which is not the same thing.

But I digress, and am pleased of your clarification.

Ian Tresman

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let me add that I am not the expert here. Any further discussion about this should be done by private message with the moderators of the Cosmology forum. But, I can say that we do not accept the argument that viable theories cannot get published. Personally, I suspect that your EE tried to extend his theories too far, and those ideas are the ones that have been rejected by the Cosmology community. On the other hand, if his theories are correct, then eventually they will be published and recognized by Cosmologists. But we can't be the ones to sort this out. That is beyond the scope of this or any forum at PF.

If a theory has not been rejected by the Cosmology community, then you can certainly post a reference to the published paper. AFAIK, no one on the staff has ever over-ruled a respected Cosmology journal.

 

[iantresman]

Let me add that I am not the expert here. Any further discussion about this should be done by private message with the moderators of the Cosmology forum. But, I can say that we do not accept the argument that viable theories cannot get published. Personally, I suspect that your EE tried to extend his theories too far, and those ideas are the ones that have been rejected by the Cosmology community. On the other hand, if his theories are correct, then eventually they will be published and recognized by Cosmologists. But we can't be the ones to sort this out. That is beyond the scope of this or any forum at PF.

If a theory has not been rejected by the Cosmology community, then you can certainly post a reference to the published paper. AFAIK, no one on the staff has ever over-ruled a respected Cosmology journal.

All sounds quite reasonable.Thanks for your comments.

 

[PlasmaSphere]

journals do their debunking by not publishing a theory. This is elementary, so I have to wonder about your demand for a debunking reference.

That is true, but there are a fair share of plasma cosmology papers from the main cosmology journals. I would very much to hear scientific reasons as to why they are not correct. I will start a thread elsewhere about them to see what the astronomy experts make of them, as I'm not sure this section is the place for debunking papers from established cosmology journals.

There are a few more recent papers than many of Alfvens, that take a plasma cosmology viewpoint of the cosmos, as opposed to an exclusively gravity driven picture, published in Astrophysics and Space Science. Some of Anthony Peratts work on the effects of electricity in the cosmos, and general EM forces, springs to mind;

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe
Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation

Also his successful plasma galaxy formation simulation at Los Alamos National Laboratory supercomputer was also published in Astrophysics and Space Science. surprising really, as it contradicted a lot of the previous gravitationally driven models published in that journal, and it didn't use any 'dark matter' that scientists seem so fond of nowadays.

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies

What's more, the source most often referenced here wrt Plasma Cosmology is YouTube.

I agree with that, a lot of people read plasma cosmology material and come up with their own individual interpretation of it, a lot of what you see on video sites about it are greatly exaggerated to make it more easier for the general public to understand some of the advanced plasma concepts

And most of the video's are more on the speculative 'electric universe' side of plasma cosmology, and i feel that a distinction needs to be made between the two. While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that E.U. ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more cautious approach of Plasma Cosmology. While both viewpoints permit many ideas previously excluded by Big Bang Cosmology, The Electric Universe looks at the bigger picture, and promotes more radical ideas about the role of electricity in the universe.

Plasma cosmology is more conservative in its approach and thus has received more approvement from various science journals over the years, partly due to the fact that they include areas of cosmology that the more unorthodox E.U. proponents have since disregarded.

Any further discussion about this should be done by private message with the moderators of the Cosmology forum. But, I can say that we do not accept the argument that viable theories cannot get published.

Seems fine to me, i just want to know why this is not a viable theory. This section is probably not the place for this then, i'll see what they make of it elsewhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have posted in the staff forum for review. Perhaps these papers were refuted later - they are ten years old. Either way, if we are in error on this then the ban on this topic will be lifted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We are going to temporarily lift the ban on Plasma Cosmology pending further review.

Note that only papers published by refereed Cosmology journals are allowed to be referenced. Also note that this is not a subject for discussion in S&D: Please limit posts to the Cosmology forum.

Just a reminder: We do not explore or debunk fringe theories in S&D. We explore claims of phenomena.

 

[iantresman]

We are going to temporarily lift the ban on Plasma Cosmology pending further review.

Note that only papers published by refereed Cosmology journals are allowed to be referenced. Also note that this is not a subject for discussion in S&D: Please limit posts to the Cosmology forum.

Just a reminder: We do not explore or debunk fringe theories in S&D. We explore claims of phenomena.

I don't want to rock the boat, but why would you exclude papers on Plasma Cosmology that are published in a peer-reviewed plasma journal? We surely wouldn't suggest that cosmology scientists are better or worst than plasma scientists?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think we have to be careful when we cross disciplines. Plasma journals would be fine in the physics forum and as it pertains to plasmas. Cosmology journals are appropriate for the Cosmology forum. And since we can assume that no Cosmologist would be introducing new ideas about plasmas, there is no reason to blur the lines. Any good Cosmology journal would require that references to plasma science be properly sourced.

 

[iantresman]

I think we have to be careful when we cross disciplines. Plasma journals would be fine in the physics forum and as it pertains to plasmas. Cosmology journals are appropriate for the Cosmology forum. And since we can assume that no Cosmologist would be introducing new ideas about plasmas, there is no reason to blur the lines. Any good Cosmology journal would require that references to plasma science be properly sourced.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the rational.

To disregard citations to peer reviewed plasma journals because the science is applied to Cosmology, would mean we would have to disregard the plasma journal's application to other areas of astrophysics for exactly the same reason. This does seem a little prejudicial (in the literal sense of the word), and a little odd since 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma.

And presumably we also exclude mathematical aspects of cosmology published only in mathematics journals for the same reason... and the physics of cosmology published in physics journals...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said earlier, you should really take this up with the Cosmology moderators; in particular I suggest that you PM SpaceTiger as he is our resident expert. He can help to sort out the nuances of this issue. Note however that his time at PF is limited right now, so he may take a bit to respond.

 

[iantresman]

Thanks for that, I wasn't sure who was responsible.

 

[Astronuc]

To disregard citations to peer reviewed plasma journals because the science is applied to Cosmology, would mean we would have to disregard the plasma journal's application to other areas of astrophysics for exactly the same reason. This does seem a little prejudicial (in the literal sense of the word), and a little odd since 99.999% of the visible universe is plasma.

And presumably we also exclude mathematical aspects of cosmology published only in mathematics journals for the same reason... and the physics of cosmology published in physics journals...

Not at all, we are being cautious. I was a member of IEEE for about 20 years, and particularly in the Plasma Sciences section. The papers are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and just because a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't necessarily mean the particular paper received a rigorous review - based on personal experience with various journals.

That said - we're looking at Plasma Cosmology.

Cosmologists with a background in plasma physics are certainly qualified to talk about plasmas. Folks working on terrestrial plasmas who know nothing about astrophysics are not qualified to make definitive statements about the plasma behavior in space.

Plasma Cosmology is already described as non-standard cosmology, which sets off alarm bells of skepticism for me.

BTW -
Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe
Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation

are essentially the same material.

 

[Gokul43201]

We are going to temporarily lift the ban on Plasma Cosmology pending further review.

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.

It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

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/SeniorEditors.html#Peratt

Dr. Peratt has been Guest Editor of five special issues of the Transactions on Plasma Science on Space Plasmas (1986—2000) and Guest Editor, Laser and Particle Beams Special Issue on Particle Beams and Basic Phenomena in the Plasma Universe (1988); and Session Organizer for Space Plasmas, IEEE International Conferences of Plasma Science (ICOPS), 1987-1989, 2000. He was elected to both the Nuclear and Plasma Science Societies Executive and Administrative Committees and served as Vice-Chairman on the former. He was Conference Chairman of the 1994 ICOPS in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He has also served on the Program Committee of Six ICOPS conferences and is an active participant in the Latin American Workshops on Plasma Physics. He is author of three books on Plasma Science, . . . .

Explains why his papers were readily published.

 

[iantresman]

Not at all, we are being cautious. I was a member of IEEE for about 20 years, and particularly in the Plasma Sciences section. The papers are not necessarily peer-reviewed, and just because a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't necessarily mean the particular paper received a rigorous review - based on personal experience with various journals.

Indeed. But fortunately the History of the Founding of the Transactions on Plasma Science "http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/foundingTPS.html ".

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

Cosmologists with a background in plasma physics are certainly qualified to talk about plasmas. Folks working on terrestrial plasmas who know nothing about astrophysics are not qualified to make definitive statements about the plasma behavior in space.

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.

Plasma Cosmology is already described as non-standard cosmology, which sets off alarm bells of skepticism for me.

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]

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

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 I would note that this description sounds like to comes from Wikipedia, which is hardly the most reliable source.

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-standard_cosmology#Plasma_cosmology_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]

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-standard_cosmology#Plasma_cosmology_and_ambiplasma

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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929&page=3#37 whether this a suitable subject for discussion.

 

[Astronuc]

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 https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929&page=3#37 whether this a suitable subject for discussion.

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 ideas 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 don't 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 can't 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 don't 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 don't 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.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338754 - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/VerschuurPerattAsJ.pdf - 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

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/424917 - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004most papers are published in the IEEE transactions on plasma science now, the mainstream journals don't 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.

The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit (Alfven 1981). This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission.

 

[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.

You may or may not be aware that cosmology is not a basic term. There are many types of cosmology, and each one is looked at in a different way. For instance, you will come across what is known as physical cosmology, religious cosmology, and modern metaphysical cosmology.

As of late, more and more people are beginning to become interested in modern metaphysical cosmology. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time.

There are many ways that modern metaphysical cosmology is separated from the others listed above. Generally speaking, there are three questions that are addressed when it comes to this type of cosmology. They are as follows:

1. What is the main reason that the Universe exists?
2. What are the material components that the Universe is made up of?
3. Is the overall existence of the Universe a necessity? Where did it come from, and what is the cause of it?

Over the years, many people have had different views on modern metaphysical cosmology. When it comes down to it, people who are interested in modern metaphysical cosmology address the questions listed above. And overall, these questions cannot be answered by looking deeper into science.

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 that's 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]

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

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]

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.

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

In paragraph 1: "His [Hannes Alfvén's] most famous cosmological proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ionized matter and anti-matter .."

(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." -- "http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/f3207q54p22x3362/?p=890be0c9f544488984cf5f225d1c71a3&pi=0 " (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" -- "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap%26SS.234..173F"" (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;

Magnetism was known to exist in the middle ages. They knew, even back then, that a piece of iron could act on another - at a distance.

But, the early astronomers (like their modern brethern) were simply unaware of electrical phenomena. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had already mathematically explained the shape of the orbits of the planets when Isaac Newton published his treatise on gravity in 1687. Once that occurred, nothing more was needed to explain and predict the planetary motions that could be observed in those days. Everything was solved.

This, of course, was all long before Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) flew his kite in a thunder storm or James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) developed his equations relating magnetic and electric fields. But, electric fields were difficult to measure. And astronomers didn't know they needed to know about them. So, they never got included in the "accepted" model of how the solar system or the cosmos works.

That is why, to this day, most astrophysicists have never taken courses in electromagnetic field theory or experimental plasma discharges. They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'. And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar winds, vortex trails, and bow shocks instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers.

And this paper by Donald Scott does well to illustrate some of the differences in opinion that have developed between electrical engineers and astronomy; http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf - 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.

Abstract—Amajority of baryons in the cosmos are in the plasma state. However, fundamental disagreements about the properties and behavior of electromagnetic fields in these plasmas exist between the science of modern astronomy/astrophysics and the experimentally verified laws of electrical engineering and plasma physics. Many helioastronomers claim that magnetic fields can be open ended. Astrophysicists have claimed that galactic magnetic fields begin and end on molecular clouds. Most electrical engineers, physicists, and pioneers in the electromagnetic field theory disagree [continued]

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

Edit by Ivan: Inappropriate references deleted.

 

[iantresman]

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.

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

Are you saying that EM interactions are a key ingredient in, for instance, the internal dynamics of our Solar System?

 

[iantresman]

Are you saying that EM interactions are a key ingredient in, for instance, the internal dynamics of our Solar System?

If you're asking about the dynamics of the planets around the Sun, then no. However, for ions (ie. a plasma), and small charged particles such a dust and grains (ie. a dusty plasma), then electromagnetic forces may play a significant role.

 

[Nereid]

Of interest may the principal authors of each of these, year of publication, and (an estimate of) the number of subsequent papers that cited them (excluding those by the same author):

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

A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero

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

A. L. Peratt, 1996, zero

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

A. L. Peratt, 1996, {no estimate}

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

C. K. Whitney, 1995, zero

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

A. L. Peratt, 1997, {no estimate}

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

A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero

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

A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero

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

A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero

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

E. J. Lerner, 1993, zero (the only citation is by E. J. Lerner, in a later paper)

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

H. C. Arp, 2001, 10 [comment: to have this classified as a 'plasma cosmology' (PC) paper is curious; the Arp-Narlikar Variable Mass Hypothesis (VMH) is an interesting alternative cosmological theory which has, as far as I know, no relationship to any PC ideas ... in fact, I'm pretty sure the two are mutually inconsistent, in a great many respects]

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

H. C. Arp, 2001, 9 [as above; no relationship to any PC ideas]

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/338754 - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

M. B. Bell, 2002, 3 [as above, no relationship to any PC ideas]

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/VerschuurPerattAsJ.pdf - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

A. L. Peratt/G. L. Verschuur, 1999, 5 [this paper is principally concerned with presenting an observational result; however, it does introduce 'critical ionization velocity' (CIV) and seeks to relate the observations to CIV. CIV is interesting, and the topic of some research. AFAIK, no unambiguous signature of CIV has been detected, despite a decade of searching.]

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

A. L. Peratt, 1998, 1 [what this has to do with PC is beyond me!]

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

A. L. Peratt, 1983, 7

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

C-G Fälthammar, 1988, zero

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/424917 - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004

M. B. Bell, 2004, 7 [another 'Arpian' paper; no relationship to any PC ideas]

So it looks very much like A. L. Peratt is (principal) author of almost all the PC papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals, and that almost none of these have been cited by anyone else.

The list also reveals a curiosity - why are (largely) observational papers by Arp et al.¹ listed as being related to PC?

While CIV certainly seems tied to PC, it may be investigated independently ...

¹Note that M. B. Bell, and almost all those who cite the Arp et al. and M. B. Bell papers, present empirical analyses of observations, in some cases with a view to testing hypotheses related to 'intrinsic redshift' or 'quantized redshift'.[/size]

 

[iantresman]

Of interest may the principal authors of each of these, year of publication, and (an estimate of) the number of subsequent papers that cited them (excluding those by the same author):

Whether the number of citations to an article means that (a) it is factually wrong (b) ignored (c) not understood (d) uncontested (e) unknown (f) politically unpopular , is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment.

I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal received only 1 citation in the first 10 years, and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that.

And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat published in 1943, has received one citation to the article, ever.

I think this merely shows that one journal is more popular than the other, and some ideas just don't get noticed early on. It certainly didn't reflect on the veracity of theories.

 

[Nereid]

Whether the number of citations to an article means that (a) it is factually wrong (b) ignored (c) not understood (d) uncontested (e) unknown (f) politically unpopular , is open to speculation. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment.

I note that Alfvén's original 1942 paper predicting hydromagnetic waves in Nature journal received only 1 citation in the first 10 years, and only 3 more in the next decade, and 3 more in the 10 years after that.

And Alfvén's article on the same subject in Arkiv f. Mat published in 1943, has received one citation to the article, ever.

I think this merely shows that one journal is more popular than the other, and some ideas just don't get noticed early on. It certainly didn't reflect on the veracity of theories.

Indeed.

And the numbers I gave are only estimates - even the big sites that track citations have clear caveats on the accuracy of their results.

Nor did I mean to imply that the number of citations is necessarily indicative of (a).

In fact, given PhysicsForum's excellent Independent Research (IR) section, I think those who've done recent research into things EU/PU/PC have a truly wonderful opportunity!

I mean, if these ideas, so forcefully presented on several internet sites, do, indeed, have scientific legs, then what better way to make the strength of the scientific case known than by getting something up in the IR section? Surely among the hundreds of folk writing with such vitriol and venom about contemporary mainstream space (plasma) physics, astrophysics, and cosmology there must be at least one or two who've actually done some independent research (that they're just bursting to get published)?

And there's precedent to consider too: several of PF's IR submissions have subsequently been published in pertinent, peer-reviewed journals.

May I even suggest some topics? With the phenomenal amount of high-quality astronomical data available today - for free! - along with almost as much computing power in a high-end PC as Peratt used in his supercomputer 'galaxy rotation' simulations, it should be relatively straight-forward to look for CIV signatures. There's even a precedent in some of the papers PlasmaSphere listed: David Russell, a co-author of at least one of the 'Arp et al.' papers has no professional affiliation; if he can get stuff published, in mainstream astronomy journals, based upon research using those databases (and other published papers), why not an EU proponent (in PF's IR section)?

Here's another example: why not download the Open Geospace General Circulation Model code (Open GGCM - it's open source), develop it further, and apply it to the GB of (freely available!) high-quality data on the ISM (interstellar medium), to test hypotheses about filaments in the ISM? After all, surely no proponent of any EU/PU/PC ideas could possibly claim that the Open GGCM fails to incorporate all the relevant plasma physics and electromagnetic theory, could they?

Or even more straight-forward: why not get Peratt's code, transfer it to a PC, develop it, and re-run the simulations so that they produce many more observables (such as SEDs)? Or, somewhat more ambitious, take the Peratt outputs and model the expected weak gravitational lensing signatures (and then compare them with those in the published literature)?

 

[iantresman]

May I even suggest some topics? With the phenomenal amount of high-quality astronomical data available today - for free! - along with almost as much computing power in a high-end PC as Peratt used in his supercomputer 'galaxy rotation' simulations, it should be relatively straight-forward to look for CIV signatures. There's even a precedent in some of the papers PlasmaSphere listed: David Russell, a co-author of at least one of the 'Arp et al.' papers has no professional affiliation; if he can get stuff published, in mainstream astronomy journals, based upon research using those databases (and other published papers), why not an EU proponent (in PF's IR section)?

Here's another example: why not download the Open Geospace General Circulation Model code (Open GGCM - its open source), develop it further, and apply it to the GB of (freely available!) high-quality data on the ISM (interstellar medium), to test hypotheses about filaments in the ISM? After all, surely no proponent of any EU/PU/PC ideas could possibly claim that the Open GGCM fails to incorporate all the relevant plasma physics and electromagnetic theory, could they?

Or even more straight-forward: why not get Peratt's code, transfer it to a PC, develop it, and re-run the simulations so that they produce many more observables (such as SEDs)? Or, somewhat more ambitious, take the Peratt outputs and model the expected weak gravitational lensing signatures (and then compare them with those in the published literature)?

Some very good suggestions. As always, the problem is to find those individuals who know sufficient about the subject to do just this. I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable (I'm sure they'll be no disagreement there!), and still learning about the plasma universe.

But I know others who are still getting their material published in peer reviewed journals. The Aug 2007, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1, which also includes an article by Gerrit L. Verschuur on Critical Ionization Velocity Effects.

I hadn't heard of the http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/openggcm.php (Open Geospace General Circulation Model), but I'll certainly take a look.

 

[Nereid]

Some very good suggestions.

Thanks.

As always, the problem is to find those individuals who know sufficient about the subject to do just this.

I'm puzzled, and not a little bit shocked, to read this.

Do I understand you correctly to say that, for all the years of high-volume promotion of EU/PU/PC ideas, on dozens of internet fora, there are really very few among such energetic promoters who've taken the trouble to actually learn Space/Plasma Physics 101? or Astronomy 101?

I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable (I'm sure they'll be no disagreement there!), and still learning about the plasma universe.

If so, and if there are so few who've graduated with even a BSc in physics, whence comes the intense certainty about EU ideas?

I know you can speak for only yourself, but look at PlasmaSphere's posts in this thread - so common of what EU proponents write ... is it possible that she is ignorant of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the ISM (a great many of which include Maxwell's equations, in one way or another), to take just one example?

But I know others who are still getting their material published in peer reviewed journals. The Aug 2007, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1, which also includes an article by Gerrit L. Verschuur on Critical Ionization Velocity Effects.

I hadn't heard of the http://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/models/openggcm.php (Open Geospace General Circulation Model), but I'll certainly take a look.

My goodness! For all the outpouring of vitriol and venom directed at mainstream space scientists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists, on websites promoting EU ideas, the thousands of papers on the very topic which at least one promoter claims is the foundation of 'EU theory' (Birkeland, on aurorae) are only now being discovered by one of that ideas leading lights?!?

I'm sorry iantresman, I don't mean to be rude or anything, but the AGU (American Geophysical Union) http://www.agu.org/meetings/meetings_past.html", for example!

 

[Nereid]

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; http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf - 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's post triggered a thought, and a question: have you presented papers or posters at an AGU meeting, PlasmaSphere, in their Planetary Sciences, Heliospheric Physics, or Magnetospheric Physics sections? Or attended any such meetings? Or read any of the proceedings of such meetings?

Based on Scott's article, would you be prepared to write a paper, to present at an AGU meeting, explaining why so many of the scientists are so obviously wrong (in your view) in some fundamentals of their research (and presenting an outline of how they should have been doing their analyses, writing the code for their models, and so on)?

By taking a representative selection of the AGU papers, can you support your assertion ("Mainstream science in contrast looks on the universe as electrically neutral and purely mechanical")?

And, most generally of all: in your view, what - in some detail - are the steps which those doing research in space (plasma) physics, astrophysics, and cosmology need to take, to develop and test hypotheses?

 

[Astronuc]

Since mainstream peer-reviewed plasma journals are disallowed, . . . .

I don't remember anyone at PF mentioning that mainstream peer-reviewed plasma journals are disallowed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I specified that none could be used as a source for new Cosmology theories. If you feel that certain papers can be allowed, I will leave that up to you and the other experts here.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Please offer the evidence to support that last statement.

It's a matter of the relative strengths of fluid dynamics forces versus magnetohydrodynamics forces, and I believe astrophysicists have a sound grasp of both.


As for the Abstract of Scott's paper, I take exception to his statements as to what many helioastronomers and astrophysicists have themselves claimed, and I would like to see the evidence to support Scott's assertions.

 

[Astronuc]

I specified that none could be used as a source for new Cosmology theories. If you feel that certain papers can be allowed, I will leave that up to you and the other experts here.

If those papers use observational evidence of stellar or interstellar plasmas, then they would be admissible. If however, the papers simply refer to laboratory (terrestrial) experiments, then they may not be necessarily appropriate for a discussion of plasma cosmology.

 

[iantresman]

Do I understand you correctly to say that, for all the years of high-volume promotion of EU/PU/PC ideas, on dozens of internet fora, there are really very few among such energetic promoters who've taken the trouble to actually learn Space/Plasma Physics 101? or Astronomy 101? [..]

I know you can speak for only yourself, but look at PlasmaSphere's posts in this thread - so common of what EU proponents write ... is it possible that she is ignorant of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers on the ISM (a great many of which include Maxwell's equations, in one way or another), to take just one example?

My goodness! For all the outpouring of vitriol and venom directed at mainstream space scientists, astrophysicists, and cosmologists, on websites promoting EU ideas, the thousands of papers on the very topic which at least one promoter claims is the foundation of 'EU theory' (Birkeland, on aurorae) are only now being discovered by one of that ideas leading lights?!?

As you correctly wrote, I can generally only speak for myself. As for any vitriol directed at mainstream scientists, I don't approve of nonconstructive criticism.

There are numerous well-qualified people in the plasma sciences. But I think that many of guilty of over-generalizations, both for and against many an idea.

 

[iantresman]

If those papers use observational evidence of stellar or interstellar plasmas, then they would be admissible. If however, the papers simply refer to laboratory (terrestrial) experiments, then they may not be necessarily appropriate for a discussion of plasma cosmology.

Earlier I expressed a desire to distinguish between different areas of astrophysics, namely (a) Klein's cosmology (b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (c) Plasma Cosmology (d) The Plasma Universe (e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I was wondering whether you perceive a difference between them?

I ask because about a year ago, I emailed some people I though had written peer reviewed papers on "plasma cosmologists", to ask them if they considered themselves to be "plasma cosmologists". All said they considered themselves to be "plasma physicists" or "astrophysicists". Only one said he could also be called a "plasma cosmologists.

 

[iantresman]

If those papers use observational evidence of stellar or interstellar plasmas, then they would be admissible. If however, the papers simply refer to laboratory (terrestrial) experiments, then they may not be necessarily appropriate for a discussion of plasma cosmology.

How about an example with the following papers:

• Bostick, Winston H., Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory" (1958) Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no 8. (publ. in Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 1090-109)
  .
• Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Available http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

Both papers are peer-reviewed, one in a plasma journal, both describe laboratory experiments, Peratt's also describes plasma simulations, both papers consider applications to astrophysics and galaxy formation.

I would not consider either paper to be (a) Klein's cosmology (b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (c) Plasma Cosmology, since neither paper mentions or requires their symmetric universe. But I considered both papers to fall into the categories of (d) The Plasma Universe (e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I think both papers contain decent science, and their application of laboratory plasma to cosmic plasmas in not automatically invalid.

 

[Nereid]

How about an example with the following papers:

• Bostick, Winston H., Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory" (1958) Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no 8. (publ. in Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 30, Issue 3, pp. 1090-109)
  .
• Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778. Available http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html

Both papers are peer-reviewed, one in a plasma journal, both describe laboratory experiments, Peratt's also describes plasma simulations, both papers consider applications to astrophysics and galaxy formation.

I would not consider either paper to be (a) Klein's cosmology (b) Klein-Alfvén cosmology (c) Plasma Cosmology, since neither paper mentions or requires their symmetric universe. But I considered both papers to fall into the categories of (d) The Plasma Universe (e) Plasma Astrophysics.

I think both papers contain decent science, and their application of laboratory plasma to cosmic plasmas in not automatically invalid.

(re-)Reading the second one, I am struck by just how different the state of extra-galactic astronomy is today, compared with what can infer from the Peratt paper¹.

Today, almost anyone with a broadband internet connection and the appropriate software (much of it available free) could write hypotheses (relevant to the Peratt paper), in much more rigorous, statistical form, and test them against much, much better databases (not only the number of potential objects to include, but also far more wavebands, far better understood selection effects, calibrated flux levels, and so on). Of course, as Peratt did not (it seems) make the code he used in his simulation public, reproducing that part of his paper would be quite problematic.

Perhaps it's just the benefit of > 20 years' of hindsight, but it struck me as odd that Peratt chose to restrict his simulation outputs to such a narrow range of observables, when with (it seems to me) just a few extra lines of code he could have performed a much richer range of tests of his hypotheses; while I have no objective basis for saying so, it almost seems he deliberately restricted the test space.

Further, and this is common to many of the Peratt 'astronomy' papers I've read over the years, he seems to place huge emphasis on qualitative, intuitive interpretation of images ... almost as if "what's in this picture looks like what's in that, therefore the (physical) mechanisms at work are the same!". In this regard, my reaction to some of the images could illustrate one reason why such an approach - by itself - is so little used in astronomy, namely "gee, those simulated galaxies look, to me, so different from the real galaxies he says they resemble, in certain key aspects, that I can't understand why he chose to include them as support for his hypothesis!".

One interesting aspect: the abstract of one, very recent, paper which cites, favourably, the 1986 Peratt paper starts like this: "Following the model of magnetically supported rotation of spiral galaxies, the inner disk rotation is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed becomes dominant at very large radii." Oh the irony of the history of science! Just as Birkeland's work on the physics of aurorae may be said to be 'pioneering', even though most of the details of his model (to use the modern term) are now known to be wrong, Battaner and Florido use the same word ('pioneering') when referring to Peratt, even though their (magnetic) model is different from his in just about all key aspects!

¹ I also suspect that Peratt, not being actively involved in that branch of astronomy at that time, missed, or misunderstood, a fair bit of the field, even back then.[/size]