Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[iantresman]

Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
However, Alfvén emphasized that MHD does not apply to all kinds of plasmas,

As does everyone else, so what's the point? Just because somebody wins the Nobel Prize does not mean they are the last & final word on the topic. [..]
Plasma physicists today are far more knowledgeable than was Alfven,

No argument there. I picked Alfvén because as far as I am aware, he was the first to come up with MHD, and then the first to say that it does not apply to all plasmas.

I wasn't aware of anyone else who says the same, and didn't need anyone else, no matter how much smarter they may be, to say the same thing.

Thanks also for the Richard Chase Tolman 1934 book. I was wondering when the background was first characterized as thermal (i.e., a Planck Law spectral shape).

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be a lot easier to be a "good communicator" if the mainstream websites allowed for honest and real conversations of these ideas and didn't ban all the effective communicators for having "heretical" beliefs.

When your ideas can't compete, just blame someone else.

The point is that he wrote MHD theory, he's a real "expert" on this topic and EU theory is consistent with his teachings,

But it's not consistent with observations.

unlike "magnetic reconnection" theory and goofy ideas that the mainstream is talking about. Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance and they form as a full continuum, so it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect".

This is a purely semantic objection. The phenomenon described by this term is real. That you object to the term, however well justified your objections might be, is really quite irrelevant. It's the math which counts, and there you've got nothing.

False. I trust Alfven because he was a real "expert" on this topic. So far, nothing he wrote about in MHD theory has been shown to be in error based upon a physical test.

You really don't understand how physics works, do you?

Except I'm supposed to believe that you now have the ability to do all of this properly?

With basically any fluid system (plasmas included), there is very little you can do with pen and paper. Analytic solutions tend to exist for only trivial problems. To do any half-way realistic modelling, you pretty much always need to do computer simulations. And damned straight our ability to do computer simulations is now significantly better than what Alfven had available.

When you guy "postdict" all these new numbers and then dress them up as "accurate predictions", don't you figure that turns off the skeptics?

Science journalists and the general public have a hard time digesting complex ideas. The CMB issue got presented to the general public as centering around the temperature because it's a single number representing a temperature, and hey, any idiot can understand one number and what temperature means. But that was never the heart of the matter, as even a bit of thought would have revealed. The heart of the matter was always the lineshape. Big bang predicted a Planck thermal distribution. No competing theories did. The exact temperature of that distribution should depend upon various factors (including the current age of the universe), and it will change over time so there's nothing intrinsically special about the temperature at any given point in time. But there is something very special about that lineshape: the prediction preceded the observation, and matches an ideal blackbody spectrum better than anything we have ever observed before or since. And once again: there are no competing theories which reproduce that perfect blackbody lineshape.

 

[Tubbythin]

He missed it by a factor 10!

This is hilarious. The alternative you proposed got the energy density wrong by a factor of SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you could get the right "power spectrum" without resorting to ad hoc "explanations", you might have something to complain about. As it stands your trying to claim your invisible elephant theory is superior to another theory because it predicts the right "power spectrum". I fail to see how "inflation" has any affect whatsoever on a "power spectrum" since you can't demonstrate it has any affect on nature in the first place.

My theory? Huh?

That fact that early predictions of the CMBR temperature were a bit off is of no real significance. As Zig pointed out, the important point is the shape. Just like the important bit of Newtonian gravity is the proportionality to the two masses and the fact its an inverse square law. The fact that Newton didn't know the value of the constant of proportionality didn't somehow make his theory wrong did it?

 

[Tubbythin]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

Hilarious. Thanks. Now, seriously...

 

[Reality Check]

Mainstream theories can't explain the CMBR without resorting to ad hoc and make-believe entities like inflation. You're the one who's dead wrong on this issue. There is a long history of "explanations" for the background radiation prior to Guth's introduction of "inflation". I tried to post a link, but alas I don't have enough posts yet to do that, but there are plenty of examples of an "explanation" being offered *before* the idea of inflation.

Hi Michael,
The explanation of the CMBR has nothing to do with inflation. It was established 300,000 years after the inflationary period. The CMBR anisotropy is evidence of the density perturbation of the universe when it was 300,000 years old.
Perhaps you can give us a list of the "ad hoc and make-believe entities" that explain the CMBR.

 

[Reality Check]

Evidently I can finally post links which is quite helpful:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

And your first link is the the "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" paper!
What relevance do you think that it has to plasma cosmology (the topic of this thread)?

FYI, the CMB is much more than just its temperature. IMHO the black body thermal spectrum is more important.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When your ideas can't compete, just blame someone else.

Huh? What does that have to do with the kind of junk we see over at BAUT where they have witch hunts and no one can even discuss an EU issue for more than 30 days? They'll prattle on about inflation forever, but a whole cosmology theory is limited to a 30 day discussion? Give me a break. This industry operates more like a cult than a branch of science. They even conduct witch hunts and everything. It's pitiful.

But it's not consistent with observations.

Which observations might those be? Those million degree coronal loops Alfven described in terms of electrical discharges? That solar wind that blows by at a million miles an hour just as Birkeland predicted 100 years ago?

This is a purely semantic objection.

No, it a "real" objection. Magnetic fields cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect". They have no physical substance and they form as a full and complete continuum, not as discrete lines. Only particles and circuits can "reconnect" inside a current sheet.

The phenomenon described by this term is real.

Sure, it's a "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" event.

That you object to the term,

Of course I do because magnetic lines are physically incapable of "reconnecting". It's an oxymoron.

however well justified your objections might be, is really quite irrelevant. It's the math which counts, and there you've got nothing.

What are you talking about? I have every bit of math that you have got. I don't reject MHD theory. That math is just fine by me. It's the term that the applied to that math that is irrational, illogical and physically impossible. I'm afraid you're dead wrong. The physics counts too. The *PHYSICS* is related to "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Magnetic lines have no physical substance and they are physically incapable of reconnecting.

You really don't understand how physics works, do you?

Actually I do which is why I reject the term "magnetic reconnection" as did Alfven.

With basically any fluid system (plasmas included), there is very little you can do with pen and paper. Analytic solutions tend to exist for only trivial problems. To do any half-way realistic modelling, you pretty much always need to do computer simulations.

Software science is not a substitute for "hard science" that involves actual "hardware". Birkeland was able to simulate coronal loops and solar wind 60 years before anyone had a computer.

And damned straight our ability to do computer simulations is now significantly better than what Alfven had available.

And as Alfven noted, a bad programmer is going to create bad software. A computer simulation is not a valid substitute for real empirical testing. Magnetic lines don't "reconnect" in the real world, even if you can create a virtual software world where they do reconnect.

Science journalists and the general public have a hard time digesting complex ideas.

They have a hard time comprehending terms like "magnetic reconnection", but not "electrical discharge". It all depends on how you present the idea.

The CMB issue got presented to the general public as centering around the temperature because it's a single number representing a temperature, and hey, any idiot can understand one number and what temperature means. But that was never the heart of the matter, as even a bit of thought would have revealed. The heart of the matter was always the lineshape.

Gah! You're trying to curve fit the lineshape by introducing *multiple* metaphysical entities that you cannot empirically demonstrate to be real or to have any affect on nature! That's not rational, let alone impressive to a skeptic of metaphysics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And your first link is the the "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" paper!
What relevance do you think that it has to plasma cosmology (the topic of this thread)?

I'm simply noting that BB theory isn't the only theory that "predicts" a background radiation.

FYI, the CMB is much more than just its temperature. IMHO the black body thermal spectrum is more important.

The importance of it is undeniable. The idea that you believe you can curve fit the thermal spectrum by introducing metaphysical entities and then try to claim the scientific high ground is absolutely appalling.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This is hilarious. The alternative you proposed got the energy density wrong by a factor of SEVEN HUNDRED MILLION.

So shall I attempt to resolve the problem by stuffing the concept with metaphysics like you? You don't figure his number had something to do with the fact that he probably believed the whole universe was contained in a single galaxy?

 

[Ziggurat]

And your first link is the the "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" paper!

I'm reading through it right now. Let's see: their first example calculates a temperature based on the energy density of starlight. Does starlight have a blackbody spectrum? Nope.

The second example considers extragalactic cosmic radiation. Again, they're deriving a temperature based on an energy density. But that energy density is dominated by high-energy particles. Again, not a low-temperature blackbody spectrum.

The stuff he says about Nernst is nonsense (among other things, tired light theories don't work). Although in fairness, I can't tell if it's Nernst's nonsense or the author's. But cosmic background radiation rather obviously CANNOT be in thermal equilibrium with a 3K body: it's too high energy. That it's got about the same energy density as blackbody radiation at that temperature doesn't matter: the spectrum they discuss is not blackbody.

Their fourth example is an experimental measurement of CN spectrum. Quite interesting, but the spectrum is not blackbody. In fact, they were looking at two particular emission lines, because CN does NOT behave like a blackbody at any temperature. Again, no blackbody lineshape.

Their fifth example is another tired light idea. Which, again, doesn't work.

Then they finally get to Gamow. And guess what they forget to mention? That's right, the lineshape.

FYI, the CMB is much more than just its temperature. IMHO the black body thermal spectrum is more important.

It's not just your opinion, it's the opinion of basically everyone who knows anything about the subject. And not surprisingly, it's left out of that paper completely.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which observations might those be?

Well, the CMB, to start with. You've got absolutely no idea how to get a perfect blackbody lineshape, do you?

Or there's galactic rotation curves. Again, we've crunched the numbers in previous threads: the idea that magnetic fields can play any significant role is pure nonsense.

No, it a "real" objection. Magnetic fields cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect".

That's nice. Except the actual models used don't describe lines, they describe the entire fields. Can you point to a problem in the actual models? Can you point to a math mistake they made? No, of course not. All you can do is object to the words they use to describe the models.

I'm afraid you're dead wrong. The physics counts too. The *PHYSICS* is related to "particle reconnection" and "circuit reconnection". Magnetic lines have no physical substance and they are physically incapable of reconnecting.

Then show the equations they used that are wrong, or the math mistakes they made when using those equations. Or, hell, even just the proper result from using the same equations, if their results are wrong.

Gah! You're trying to curve fit the lineshape by introducing *multiple* metaphysical entities that you cannot empirically demonstrate to be real or to have any affect on nature!

Uh... no. No, I'm not. You don't need anything metaphysical to get a blackbody spectrum of the CMB background. All you need is a sufficiently dense and hot plasma of protons and electrons everywhere, followed by expansion (not inflation). No dark matter is needed, no dark energy, nothing but protons and electrons and a big bang, and you get a perfect blackbody spectrum. It's the alternatives which need to introduce "metaphysical entities that you cannot empirically demonstrate" in order to get that lineshape. Or, if you're like most EU proponents, you try to ignore the issue altogether.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm reading through it right now. Let's see: their first example calculates a temperature based on the energy density of starlight. Does starlight have a blackbody spectrum? Nope.

You mean to tell me that they don't calculate solar output based on black body calculations?

The second example considers extragalactic cosmic radiation. Again, they're deriving a temperature based on an energy density. But that energy density is dominated by high-energy particles. Again, not a low-temperature blackbody spectrum.

Yet somehow a calculation based upon a metaphysical entity is "better"?

It's not just your opinion, it's the opinion of basically everyone who knows anything about the subject. And not surprisingly, it's left out of that paper completely.

I still fail to understand why you think I'm going to be impressed with a curve fitting exercise with multiple metaphysical fudge factors. Even if EU theory never fully "explains" this phenomenon to your personal satisfaction, so what? You can't do it either without "cheating" and using metaphysical fudge factors galore!

 

[sol invictus]

You mean to tell me that they don't calculate solar output based on black body calculations?

What kind of bizarre question is that? Have you never seen a stellar spectrum?

Magnetic fields cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect".

What in the world are you talking about? Magnetic reconnection is a technical technical term that describes a class of solutions to Maxwell's equations (those in which - shockingly, given the name - the field lines reconnect). Do you deny those solutions exist? Or that they behave as people say they do? If so, let's see the math - where's the mistake? Or do you not believe in Maxwell's equations either?

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean to tell me that they don't calculate solar output based on black body calculations?

Of course not. That would be stupid, since they are not black bodies. And it's beside the point anyways, since their temperature is very high anyways. All they did was calculate the energy density from the intensity of starlight (which you need to measure anyways), and then find the blackbody temperature which would give the same energy density. But it wouldn't give the same spectrum even if stars were blackbodies, because stars radiate at high temperatures.

Yet somehow a calculation based upon a metaphysical entity is "better"?

It's not a matter of better or worse, it's a matter of it being a different thing. It is not a blackbody spectrum.

I still fail to understand why you think I'm going to be impressed with a curve fitting exercise with multiple metaphysical fudge factors.

Except the shape of a blackbody spectrum has only ONE adustable parameter. That's why it's so remarkable that the fit is so perfect. It's a better fit than any artificial black body we've ever been able to create.

Even if EU theory never fully "explains" this phenomenon to your personal satisfaction, so what?

EU theory doesn't explain it at all. There were NO predictions of a blackbody spectrum from EU theory, or any other theory, prior to its experimental confirmation.

You can't do it either without "cheating" and using metaphysical fudge factors galore!

And what fudge factors do you think the big bang theory requires in order to produce a blackbody CMB? You haven't actually named them. Dark matter is not required. Inflation is not required. Dark energy is not required. None of those things is required in order to produce a blackbody CMB spectrum from the big bang.

 

[The Man]

The point is that he wrote MHD theory, he's a real "expert" on this topic and EU theory is consistent with his teachings, unlike "magnetic reconnection" theory and goofy ideas that the mainstream is talking about. Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance and they form as a full continuum, so it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can "reconnect" in plasma, not magnetic lines. The mainstreamers fancy themselves as quite the experts on MHD theory, but they turn right around and attempt to misuse and abuse the whole concept!

So you claim “Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance” and “they form as a full continuum” while asserting a physical limitation “it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect"” on how that continuum which you say lacks “physical substance” might change? Magnetic field lines are just representations of the vector fields around an object or within a substance, oriented as loops. As the orientations of those vectors changes so do the lines used to represent that vector field and the configuration of those loops. When vectors pointing in generally opposing or even paralell directions which are represented by different loops in some area shift and now point in different directions now forming part of the same loop, the magnetic field lines we use to represent those vectors have “reconnected”. You can’t have it both ways, assert a lack of a physical nature for magnetic field lines and then try to assert some physical restriction that “it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect"”.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What kind of bizarre question is that? Have you never seen a stellar spectrum?

Sure I've seen one. I also know that the output of the sun is calculated as though the photosphere is an opaque "black body" radiating at 6000K.

What in the world are you talking about? Magnetic reconnection is a technical technical term that describes a class of solutions to Maxwell's equations (those in which - shockingly, given the name - the field lines reconnect). Do you deny those solutions exist?

No, I don't deny they exist.

Or that they behave as people say they do?

Magnetic lines are not physically tangible and they form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other "magnetic line". The math actually describes what Alfven calls "current sheet acceleration" or "particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection", but it is physically impossible for magnetic lines to "reconnect" to any other magnetic line.

Magnetic reconnection theory is in fact an application of MHD theory to objects in space, so in a quirky way, it is in fact a part of EU/PC theory, abeit with a weird and quirky, and self conflicted title. The math is fine by the way, it's the *name* they assigned the process that is self conflicted nonsense.

From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 29.

1I .6 .3. ENERGY RELEASE IN DOUBLE LAYERS
If a double layer has been formed by a current I, energy at a rate
P=IV(sub D)

is released in the double layer . This energy is mainly used for accelerating charged particles. A small fraction is usually dissipated as noise. Of course, the accelerated particles interact with the plasma and produce a number of secondary effects so that the released energy finally is dissipated as heating and radiation. Again, it should be mentioned that there is no possibility of accounting for the energy of the particles as a result of 'magnetic merging' or of magnetic field-line reconnection', or any other mechanism which
implies changing magnetic fields in the region of acceleration (II.33, II.53). In the region of the double layer, the magnetic field during the explosive transient phase is almost constant and cannot supply the required energy (of course, the secondary effects of the explosion also cause changes in the magnetic field).

If so, let's see the math - where's the mistake? Or do you not believe in Maxwell's equations either?

There's nothing wrong with the equations, just the "title". The magnetic lines are simply a function of the current flow. This process is accurately describe as "circuit reconnection", "particle reconnection" or "current sheet acceleration", but at no time can magnetic lines disconnect or reconnect. It is a physical impossibility since magnetic lines lack physical substance and form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you claim “Magnetic lines don't even have physical substance” and “they form as a full continuum”

Yep, that's pretty much the theory behind electrical engineering and Alfven was an electrical engineer. I suppose that is why he too rejected the notion of reconnecting magnetic lines.

while asserting a physical limitation “it is physically *impossible* for them to "reconnect"”

Something that lacks physical substance cannot "reconnect" in any physical way.

on how that continuum which you say lacks “physical substance” might change?

As the current flow changes direction and particles "reconnect' inside the current sheet, the topology of the magnetic fields changes with the current flow. The *particles* in the plasma "reconnect", as do the "circuits". The "circuit energy" will determine the rate of reconnection. The magnetic lines are simply flowing with the current, much like would would see magnetic fields around the threads in an ordinary plasma ball.

Magnetic field lines are just representations of the vector fields around an object or within a substance, oriented as loops.

The notion of "lines" is handy as visualization technique but the field forms as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.

As the orientations of those vectors changes so do the lines used to represent that vector field and the configuration of those loops.

They change as a result of the *CURRENT FLOW* and the direction of the CURRENT FLOW. The magnetic lines are not substantive, whereas the electrons and ions in the plasma are physical and can "reconnect".

The "reconnection" has nothing whatsoever to do with the magnetic lines and everything to do with the flow of particles inside the current sheet. The whole *circuit energy* will determine the rate of reconnection and not one single magnetic line disconnects or reconnects inside the current sheet.

From Alfven in Cosmic Plasma, page 16.

There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way. Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978).

What makes you more knowledgeable about MHD theory than the guy who wrote the theory?

 

[Ziggurat]

There's nothing wrong with the equations, just the "title".

In other words, your objection is merely semantic, as I said before.

 

[Tubbythin]

So shall I attempt to resolve the problem by stuffing the concept with metaphysics like you? You don't figure his number had something to do with the fact that he probably believed the whole universe was contained in a single galaxy?

What the hell are you talking about? There is only one free parameter in the equation for a black body spectrum. What are you saying is metaphysics? A black body spectrum? The concept of temperature? What?

The shape of the CMBR spectrum is INDEPENDENT of whether inflation occurred or not. So please enlighten us all as to what the supposed "metaphysics" I'm talking about is.