Sol kept asking for predictions that had been made relevant to plasma cosmology, and by plasma cosmologists. So i figured i would list a couple.
Birkeland Currents:The currents were predicted in 1903 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions into the Arctic Circle to study the aurora. The currents were predicted in 1903 by Norwegian explorer and physicist Kristian Birkeland, who undertook expeditions into the Arctic Circle to study the aurora.
Professor Emeritus of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar wrote (1986): "A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth."
Zmuda et al detected field align-currents in 1966. Even Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler "discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted" and should be called Birkeland-Dessler currents.
He also predicted auroral electrojets in 1908. He wrote: "[p.95 ..] the currents there are imagined as having come into existence mainly as a secondary effect of the electric corpuscles from the sun drawn in out of space, and thus far come under the second of the possibilities mentioned above. [p.105 ..] Fig. 50a represents those in which the current-directions at the storm-centre are directed westwards, and 50b those in which the currents move eastwards."
In 1913, Birkeland was the first to predict that plasma was ubiquitous in space. He wrote: "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space.”
In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that the solar wind behaves as do all charged particles in an electric field, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds"; in other words, the Solar Wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions”
And Hannes Alfven, often considered the founder of plasma cosmology, made many successful predictions
In 1942 Alfven proposed that an electrically conducting fluid in a magnetic field can propagate “electromagnetic- hydrodynamic waves.” In the idealized case of infinite conductivity and a constant magnetic field Ho, the wave velocity should be proportional to Ho multiplied by the square root of permeability divided by density. He suggested that such waves may be important in solar physics, in particular in explaining sunspots.
The first laboratory demonstration of Alfven’s waves was published seven years later by Lundquist, who was able to generate them in mercury; he found that the wave velocity was approximately that given by Alfven’s formula. Further confirmation came within the next few years from experiments on ionized helium and liquid sodium. Of equal weight in convincing the scientific community to accept hydromagnetic waves was their use by Fermi in his theory of the origin of cosmic rays. According to Dessler, “An oversimplified statement of what had occurred . . . was that Fermi heard [Alfven’s] lecture at the University of Chicago, nodded his head and said, ‘Of course.’ The next day the entire world of physics said, ‘Oh, of course.”)
In 1954, in connection with his theory of the origin of the solar system, Alfven proposed that when a neutral gas cloud encounters a plasma at relative velocity, v, the cloud will start to become ionized when the relative kinetic energy is equal to the ionization energy,
(1/2)mv
2 = eV
ion
Where V
ion is the ionization potential of the atoms or molecules in the cloud. The velocity cannot exceed the critical value given by this equation until ionization is almost complete (
ref),
The first laboratory tests were conducted by Alfven’s colleagues at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. They found that the relative velocity could be increased to the critical velocity, but additional energy put into the system then went into ionizing the neutral gas rather than into increasing the relative velocity. The critical velocity is roughly independent of the pressure and magnetic field, as predicted by Alfven’s equation (
ref) At about the same time, attempts to construct controlled thermonuclear devices encountered a “velocity limiting effect,” which appeared to be due at least in part to critical ionization.
Planetary scientists respected Alfvtn’s contributions to plasma physics and cosmic electrodynamics (for which he received the 1970 Nobel prize in physics); few of them felt qualified to criticize his ideas on magnetic braking, magnetohydynamic waves, field-aligned currents, and critical ionization velocity. But his next hypothesis involved only classical mechanics and generated a large literature, both pro and con. He proposed that inelastic collisions of solid particles moving in Kepler orbits will tend to focus them into “jet streams.”
Detailed calculations of the dynamics of systems of particles indicated that Alfven’s jet-stream effect-a sort of “negative diffusion”-could indeed occur, but only if the collisions were sufficiently inelastic (
ref). Alfven’s interpretation of the Hirayama family was supported by several scientists (
ref)(
ref) but others argued that asteroid data cannot be explained by the jet stream hypothesis, or they opposed the hypothesis for other reasons not outlined. Alfven and others have argued that the narrowness of planetary rings can be explained as a jet stream effect(
ref).
In the 1950’s, Swedish electrical engineers attempted to develop systems to transfer power by direct current over long distances, but ran into difficulties when their mercury rectifiers exploded because of enormous voltage fluctuations. Alfven’s group at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm found that the problem involved a phenomenon discovered in the U.S. in the 1920’s by Irving Langmuir and Harold Mott-Smith. The Americans showed that in a discharge tube the plasma sets up a thin boundary sheath which separates it from a wall or from a probe and shields it from the electric field. The electric field in this sheath accelerates charged particles, ans this is called a
double layer. In 1958 Alfven suggested that this phenomenon may be important in space plasmas, especially in or near the Earth’s atmosphere
The first evidence for electrostatic double layers in the magnetosphere was found as early as 1960 by Carl McIlwain, his paper states that “the presence of monoenergetic electrons [in an auroral arc] strongly suggests an electrostatic acceleration mechanism” but he does not say what that mechanism is or mention Alfven’s double layer. The double-layer concept has also been used to explain solar flares and other space phenomena. Double layers are now known to exist but are still not widely used, and many scientist use completely different names to describe this same phenomenon. Other names for a double layer are electrostatic double layer, electric double layer, plasma double layers, electrostatic shock (a type of double layer which is oriented at an oblique angle to the magnetic field in such a way that the perpendicular electric field is much stronger than the parallel electric field), space charge layer, or In laser physics a double layer is sometimes called an ambipolar electric field ( as Double layers are conceptually related to the concept of a 'sheath', see
Debye sheath]). This is mainly because this sort of plasma physics is not taught in normal astrophysics education, so it is often forgotten or ignored from their scientific models.
Alfven’s approach to science follows the prediction-testing method advocated by Popper and other philosophers of science, and is quite similar to the “methodology of scientific research programmes” described by Imre Lakatos. By Popperian criteria his theories should have acquired credit by their successful predictions, and by Lakatosian standards his programme should be considered “progressive.” Yet most of the scientific community refuses to follow it or to give Alfven credit for his achievements although many of his basic concepts are now accepted. This case may not be typical of the behaviour of scientists confronted by a theory that violates their understanding of the nature of the physical world yet makes successful predictions. In other cases (general relativity and Big Bang cosmology) such theories have eventually been accepted with the help of successful predictions. Nevertheless, the continuing resistance to Alfven’s work is based on a widely held opinion that his predictions are not derived from a plausible physical theory (i.e., a theory that conforms to the dominant paradigm). If a theory is not acceptable, it does not gain credit by making successful predictions. This would imply that the role of prediction as a means of evaluating scientific theories has been exaggerated.
Another plasma cosmologist/EU proponent, Wallace Thornhill, has made many successful predictions based on plasma cosmoloogy concepts.
In December of 2004, Thornhill predicted that spidery ravine networks ("Lichtenberg" forms) would be seen on Titan, not unlike the "arachnoids" on Venus. He also stated it was unlikely that large craters would be observed, although mainstream investigators were expecting them in abundance. In the standard view of Titan, the moon is billions of years old, allowing plenty of time for massive impacts to scar the surface.
To date, images returned of Titan reveal that large craters are almost non-existent. What they do show are the very
Lichtenberg patterns of electrical discharge Thornhill had anticipated.
In October 2001, after the announcement of NASA's 2005 Deep Impact mission, Thornhill wrote:
"Given the erroneous standard model of comets it is an interesting exercise to imagine what surprises are in store for astronomers if the plan is successful. The electrical model suggests the likelihood of an electrical discharge between the comet nucleus and the copper projectile, particularly if the comet is actively flaring at the time. The projectile will approach too quickly for a slow electrical discharge to occur. So the energetic effects of the encounter should exceed that of a simple physical impact, in the same way that was seen with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 at Jupiter."
Twenty-four hours before the impact event, in collaboration with the Thunderbolts.info group, Thornhill
predicted that an electrical "flash" might precede the impact and explosion, and that the explosion would be far more energetic than NASA anticipated. And this is precisely what happened on July 4, 2005, much to the astonishment of NASA and astronomers around the world.
Other successful Thornhill predictions included:
*a lack of increase in water production in the cometary coma (indicating a lack of subsurface water anticipated by astronomers);
*an unexpected lack of ice on the comet nucleus, or water in the immediate ejecta from impact;
*a sculpted comet surface with sharply defined craters, valleys, mesas, and ridges (the precise opposite of what one expects of a "dirty snowball");
*a rearrangement of the comet's jets due to charge distribution.
On February 5, 2005, Australian physicist Wallace Thornhill, co-author of The Electric Universe and Thunderbolts of the Gods, published on his website (
http://www.Holoscience.com) his analysis of scientists' discovery of a "warm polar vortex at Saturn's south pole." Thornhill offered a detailed electrical interpretation of the phenomenon, and chastened investigators for referring to the "vortex" as "the first to ever be discovered in the solar system."
He wrote:
"Keck researchers don't seem to have done their homework. Or maybe things that can't be explained get forgotten! Saturn's 'warm polar vortex' is not 'the first to ever be discovered.' The Pioneer Venus Orbiter (PVO) discovered a warm 'giant vortex (Birkeland current) of surprisingly complex structure and behaviour located in the middle atmosphere at the north pole of the planet, with a similar feature presumed to exist at the south pole also.'"
On the question of Saturn's strange polar "hot spot," Thornhill offered an explicit prediction:
"The Electric Universe also predicts, experimentum crucis, that both poles should be hot, not one hot and the other cold."
On January 3, 2008, the Reuters news service published the science headline, "
Scientists find hot spot on Saturn's chilly pole": "Saturn's chilly north pole boasts a hot spot of compressed air, a surprising discovery that could shed light on other planets within our own solar system and beyond, researchers said on Thursday.
"Scientists already knew about a hot spot at Saturn's sunny south pole but data from the Cassini spacecraft now shows that the winter pole drenched in darkness also has a hot spot, said Nick Teanby, a planetary scientist, who worked on the study. ‘We didn't expect it to have a hot spot at the north’, said Teanby of the University of Oxford.
Also the Birkeland currents recently found by Themsis connecting the Earths poles to the sun were predicted by Alfven, as were double radio sources, magnetic braking, and others. There are many more, Nobel laureate Langmuir also made a couple of predictions that turned out true, as did Anthony Peratt with galaxy shapes and pinch effects in the cosmos, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation, the spatially varying power law within a source in space; along with predictions by Gerrit L. Verschuur made predictions in the field of CIV and formation of currents in EM rays, as did Oscar Buneman in the field of plasma simulation, etc.
The importance of a theory is to make predictions, and it seems that they have made many, by applying the tested characteristics of plasma in laboratory experiments and scaling this up to the size of the cosmos. An approach that seems forever to produce increasingly accurate predictions and results.
on self...sigh)
