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.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, sunspots 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 recieve its energy from its galactic environment delivered by particles in an external circuit via cosmic electrical circuits described first by Hannes Alfven
It is not an emerging area of cosmology, but it is nonsense and an emerging area of crackpottery.Well. This did not make much sense for me. Is there something to be debunked?
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.
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.
- 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.
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.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.
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.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.
All sounds quite reasonable.Thanks for your comments.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.
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.journals do their debunking by not publishing a theory. This is elementary, so I have to wonder about your demand for a debunking reference.
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 conceptsWhat's more, the source most often referenced here wrt Plasma Cosmology is YouTube.
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.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.
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?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 guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the rational.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.
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.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...
Why? Has ST approved this?We are going to temporarily lift the ban on Plasma Cosmology pending further review.
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.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.
Explains why his papers were readily published.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, . . . .
Indeed. But fortunately the History of the Founding of the Transactions on Plasma Science "http://plasmascience.net/ieeetps/foundingTPS.html [Broken]".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.
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.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.
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.Plasma Cosmology is already described as non-standard cosmology, which sets off alarm bells of skepticism for me.
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.As for whether papers "received a rigorous review", I think we could make that criticism of any publication, especially where controversial material is involved.
But of course. Wikipedia is one of a few sites where this description if found.But I would note that this description sounds like to comes from Wikipedia, which is hardly the most reliable source.
I see parts of the article that are factually incorrect, and the bottom of the chemie.de page notes: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.
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.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.