Plasma cosmology

  • Thread starter henxan
  • Start date
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.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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
 
Last edited:
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 [Broken] - 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 [Broken] - 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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was reading one of the links provided on the right on the physics post section (http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=229 [Broken]) 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 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
64
0
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.
 
64
0
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.

Wiki Plasma Cosmology article said:
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 [Broken]" (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&SS.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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
64
0
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.
 
Last edited:
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
Are you saying that EM interactions are a key ingredient in, for instance, the internal dynamics of our Solar System?
 
64
0
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
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
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 [Broken] - 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 [Broken] - 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'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
64
0
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
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)?
 
Last edited:
64
0
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 [Broken] (Open Geospace General Circulation Model), but I'll certainly take a look.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
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 [Broken] (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 idea's 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!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,543
1,685
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,543
1,685
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
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,543
1,685
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.
 
Last edited:
64
0
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 idea's 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.
 
64
0
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.
 
64
0
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:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nereid
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,334
1
How about an example with the following papers:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Plasma cosmology

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
175
Views
16K
Replies
4
Views
420
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Top