Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Plasma cosmology

  1. Jan 1, 2008 #21

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2008
  2. Jan 1, 2008 #22

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  3. Jan 1, 2008 #23

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 1, 2008
  4. Jan 3, 2008 #24
    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.
     
  5. Jan 3, 2008 #25

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  6. Jan 3, 2008 #26
    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: Jan 3, 2008
  7. Jan 3, 2008 #27

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jan 3, 2008
  8. Jan 3, 2008 #28
    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.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  9. Jan 4, 2008 #29
    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.

    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: May 3, 2017
  10. Jan 4, 2008 #30
    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.
     
  11. Jan 4, 2008 #31
    Since mainstream peer-reviewed plasma journals are disallowed, this is quite difficult.

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

    "As a necessary consequence of the basic arguments it was later assumed that the initial cloud was a mixture of equal amounts of particles and antiparticles. Arguments for assuming such a symmetry were forwarded by many physicists (among them O. Klein) immediately after the discovery of the positron more than thirty years ago" -- Antimatter and the Development of the Metagalaxy, Review of Modern Physics, 37, 652 - 665 (1965)​
    Independently confirmed (sorry, not a cosmology journal):
    "Alfvén had early exposure to the idea of O. Klein (1944) that matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts and that because astronomical observations are unable to distinguish between matter and antimatter they may still exist throughout the universe in equal quantities, although locally of course they have to be separated." -- "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: May 3, 2017
  12. Jan 4, 2008 #32

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jan 4, 2008
  13. Jan 5, 2008 #33
    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 23, 2017
  14. Jan 5, 2008 #34
    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: Jan 5, 2008
  15. Jan 5, 2008 #35

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Are you saying that EM interactions are a key ingredient in, for instance, the internal dynamics of our Solar System?
     
  16. Jan 6, 2008 #36
    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.
     
  17. Jan 6, 2008 #37

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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):
    A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero
    A. L. Peratt, 1996, zero
    A. L. Peratt, 1996, {no estimate}
    C. K. Whitney, 1995, zero
    A. L. Peratt, 1997, {no estimate}
    A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero
    A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero
    A. L. Peratt, 1995, zero
    E. J. Lerner, 1993, zero (the only citation is by E. J. Lerner, in a later paper)
    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]
    H. C. Arp, 2001, 9 [as above; no relationship to any PC ideas]
    M. B. Bell, 2002, 3 [as above, no relationship to any PC ideas]
    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.]
    A. L. Peratt, 1998, 1 [what this has to do with PC is beyond me!]
    A. L. Peratt, 1983, 7
    C-G Fälthammar, 1988, zero
    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: May 3, 2017
  18. Jan 6, 2008 #38
    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.
     
  19. Jan 6, 2008 #39

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Jan 6, 2008
  20. Jan 6, 2008 #40
    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: May 3, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook