Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Perpetual Student]

Zeuzzz and Michael Mozina:
I believe there is no more fascinating quest than understanding the nature and origin of the universe and life. I dedicate much of my reading to these subjects. So I have great interest in these discussions and I very much appreciate and admire your efforts. Unfortunately, I am limited by having only a masters degree in mathematics and an undergraduate minor in physics so that much of these discussions are beyond my skills and knowledge. As a retired person with some time on my hands, I do my best.
The big bang concept is difficult for me -- the universe having a beginning, expanding, inflating, needing dark energy, etc. are all counter-intuitive and disturbing concepts. Even though I have been reading about these theories for decades from sources like (Scientific American, etc.), I wish alternative theories had more observational support simply because I find them more credible and satisfying.
Having said that, I can't ignore the weight of thousands of theorists in this field who support current prevailing theories. Accusations that they have blinders on or they are merely conforming to some group dogma do not ring true. They struggle to find explanations for astronomical observations that are consistent with known principles of physics. If any one or group of cosmologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, etc. could come up with viable alternative explanations, would they not publish their findings and be heard? They have as much passion for truth as you and would benefit from the esteem that would come from any theory that could overturn the current consensus. If there is any merit to you opinions, eventually you will be vindicated. If not, you have participated in an interesting discussion for old farts like me to ponder. In either case, thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

I do not pretend they dont exist. I do take it all in, and I appreciate peoples feedback. I'm just stubborn.

You seriously expect me to admit when I'm wrong? Surely, you know me better than this Maybe, (as i recall happened before) a certain said substance reduces my intransigency.

But I still hate you all.*

Coffe removes finger prints from the monitor screen, did you know that?

I do have a model. And I do have a theories. They just dont work.



....well, some anyway.

Many 'alternative' cosmologists have various theories on par with, or at least strikingly similar in approach, to plasma cosmology. But hey, PC (Lerner [1980-95] + Peratt) is pretty much dead. I spoke with Lerner the other day on his fusion forum, he acknowledged this himself. However, the unique and logical plasma based approach to cosmology/astrophysics/EU is still a perspective that could hold fruit. And not just apples and bannanas, but pinapples and gooseberries. I'm not alone in my various views. I'm in good company

As I have stated before Zeuzzz, I think the plasma has a very strong influence in the early universe.

But it is the extension of plasma to all sorts of speculative realms that is not worth merit.

I approached it openly, it is the consistency of theories that is the problem.

Plasma is part of the standard model.

So, meanwhile, I'll just keep picking holes in the silly little thing called BIG BANG. Maybe its more a philosophical quibble than rigourously science based opinion, but hey.

Again I object to the mischaracterization of the theory.

The explanation of the universe we observe is what is is. Most of the problem comes from trying to go past what we can observe.

The universe can be infite in time, but we can't see any evidence from prior to the BBE>

When the more definitive alternatve explantions that explain the inflation field and CMB emerge I'll be the first to post it here. Theres no shortage of people looking, and no shortage of potential theories.

Theres a heck of a lot of material to get though, and a hell of a lot of new theories to contemplate http://www.cosmology.info/

*that was a joke**

**an attempt at one anyway

It was funny.

 

[tusenfem]

Boloney. A "flux tube" is just your bogus jargon for "current carrying filament". The current flow in the filament is carried through the "flux tube", and that's the part you seem to be utterly oblivious about. It's the 'current flow' that is carried by the "magnetic rope". Alfven described a magnetic rope as a Bennett Pinch.

Evidently, you have no idea what a flux tube is. It is just a bundle of field lines, nothing more nothing less, and there is no reason whatsoever for a current to flow along it. In a perfect vacuum I can have magnetic field and define a flux tube.

Now, if there is a ponderomotive force working on the flux tube, like e.g. shear, or if the tube is bent, then there will be a current flowing along the flux tube. A field aligned current, which will create it's own, extra, magnetic field, twisting the flux tube, creating a flux rope.

And yeah, if there is current flowing, you can consider it as a Bennett pinch, but what exactly are the requierements for a Bennett pinch???

False again. It is *always the case* that currents flow or you wouldn't have what you are calling a "magnetic line" in the first place. That "tube' is no different that what we observe inside an ordinary plasma ball. It's a "current carrying filament" being 'pinched' by the magnetic field that forms around the current flow.

No, it is not, if I can turn off the conductivity of Io or Europa, then there still will be a flux tube, but there will be no current flowing along it.

You are hooked on semantics and misguided definitions. Unless Alfven said it, it cannot be true. You are oblivious of what magnetic fields do, you think the only flux tubes exist on the sun, I bet you can't even fathom a straight flux tube, in which nothing happens.

A plasma ball is not a flux tube! That is just lightning searching for the path of "least resistance". Naturally there will be small magnetic fields generated by the blue discharges that you see there but they have nothing to do with magnetic flux tubes. If they were magnetic flux tubes, how are they generated? Where is the current that creates that "tube". It cannot be the blue current, coz that only creates a poloidal current around itself.

You guys are oblivious to the *physics* of what's going on. You may understand the "math" just fine, but when it comes to the actual PHYSICS part, you're totally out to lunch. Magnetic fields not not "disconnect" or "reconnect". Only particles and circuits can do that in plasma.

And you, unfortunately are so messed up with respect to semantics, lack of imagination, and understanding of what a vector field actually does, it is astounding. You still have not told us in any significant way how you describe reconnection, how you describe the change of topology of the magnetic vector field, etc. etc.

The magnetic field only exists *because* of the current flow inside the tube. You can turn off the plasma ball and watch all the "flux tubes" disappear. You can turn it back on and watch them form again. It's the "current flow" inside that filament that is heating the plasma to millions of degrees! Get real.

No, get this into your head please: the current flowing along a mangetic flux tube CANNOT generate the field it is flowing along, no current can create an aligned magnetic field.

An for the umpteenth time, a plasma ball has nothing to do with magnetic fields and flux tubes.

You may have written a dubious paper once on the CNO cycle in a magnetic loop on the sun, but that does not mean that you understand what magnetic flux tubes, flux ropes, heck what a magnetic vector field is.

 

[tusenfem]

My bold red. I explained that exact process to you. I used mainstream terminology. I have not said anything "woo".

Again. The electron gyro radius in a plasma is much larger than in a solid wire.
The electron is now approaching the motion of an electric current in a SOLENOID. Because of the electrons gyroradius the magnetic field has a parallel component that is visible. Think of the flux tube as a long SOLENOID.
That is where the parallel component/vector comes in.

Conversely as a plasma approaches a solid (wire), the gyroradius becomes almost negligible producing the most extreme case of the right hand rule with almost straight electron travel.

Do you really think that on the scale of solar magnetic loops the gyro radius of the electron has any significance? You are trying to make things sound profounder than they are. A magnetic loop has a diameter of about the Earth's diameter and the field strength is about 10 Gauss (= 0.001 Tesla). What is the energy of the electron? Say lowly relativistic 2 10⁸ m/s, then if I am not mistaken, the larmor radius is 1 km! On the whole scale of these kinds of loops the gyro radius is negligible, unless you start to look at very very small structures. So, the field lines are ALWAYS "solid wires".

Now if you have 2 filaments next to each other they have some repulsive force.
If there is a fluctuation in the current supply feeding the magnetic field, the repulsive force collapses(attractive force takes over) and the filaments touch.
This causes a short circuit and bang "reconnection". Not magnetic reconnection.
The change is current changing from flowing in 2 parallel strands to flowing across 2 strands. There is also a short lived double layer that forms between the two strands as the current flow switches direction. As the current increases in strength "between" the 2 strands the middle will increase in magnetic field strength ejecting some particles.

Again, you forget the most important part in your description, do you have parallel or anti parallel magnetic field in those filamnents? Is the current flowing in the same or in opposite directoin?

I guess anti parallel currents, because you have a repulsive force.
A fluctuation of the current feeding the field, THAT current does not exist! The magnetic loops on the surface of the Sun are maintained by current systems under the surface of the Sun.
If the current fluctuates or disappears, where exactly does the attractive force come from?
Your whole idea does not compute.
And why on Earth (or rather Sun) would there be a double layer created? How is this DL created and why? It sounds nice, but the why?

No magnetic reconnection, ey? Then why does the topology of the loop change from one large loop, to a sort of figure 8, with half the bottom circle of the 8 under the surface of the Sun. You really do not see that the magnetic field topology has significantly changed? That first you could draw field lines along the loop (possibly spiralling a bit) and then out of that there are created two kinds of "loops", one a smaller version of the starting loop and one a closed loop? At some points the field lines that you could draw have at one point a significant changed, whethere they are real or not. You can do the same by just looking at the magnetic vector field with is topologically different.

So no I am not propagating the mainstream viewpoint. I am correcting the mainstream view point in one specific area, and explaining the "somehow" mystery. And in addition, showing how flux tubes are current carriers with a "'parallel" magnetic field.

There is nothing woo about this. Something is making that electromagnetic field, and that is moving electrons. Something is making those electrons move down that flux tube, and that is the electric field across (potential difference) the flux tube. And as such we can say that flux tubes carry electrical current to equalize the potential difference(between objects), no matter the reason for the difference.

From looking at what is going on here, what is lacking is objective causality.
You have to start somewhere. Everything should reduce to one basic idea(ideally). With plasma and magnetic fields that is electric current.
My favorite unit is the eV or electron volt. You can describe most everything in eV....

No, you are not "correcting" mainstream, you just put some profound sounding terms in a row and call it a "model". You have not the first idea of what exactly happens. You don't seem to understand the current systems involved and the topological changes of the magnetic vector field.

Well, the green part does not even sound too bad, but then that is not so profound and any schoolkid learning physics could write up the same.

Maybe we have to start somewhere, and if you want to discuss the sun then you start somewhere deep in the sun in the convection layer, where the solar magnetic field is created.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Evidently, you have no idea what a flux tube is. It is just a bundle of field lines, nothing more nothing less, and there is no reason whatsoever for a current to flow along it. In a perfect vacuum I can have magnetic field and define a flux tube.

This is essentially the heart of our disagreement in a nutshell. It is you that do not know what a "flux tube" is. Alfven already described these events tusenfum. He described them tin terms of "electrical discharges", "exploding double layers", "current sheet acceleration" and in terms of *electrical current flow* in plasma. You're simply making up stuff now and ignoring the *physics* entirely.

The "tube" is a direct result of the "current flow" inside that plasma filament. The magnetic fields are simply "pinching" the flow into a filamentary shape, the same exactly kind of thing you find inside of an ordinary plasma ball. The kinetic energy of the particles conveys the "energy" at the point of "reconnection".

Somehow you believe these are stationary magnetic lines without any sort of "current flow" but even a cursory glance at a Hinode image demonstrates that this is absurd. The plasma is *moving* at high velocity tusenfum. That solar wind is whipping by the magnetosphere at over a million miles per hour. Alfven called your theory "pseudoscience' because it doesn't accurately describe the real "physics' going on. It is the movement of charged particles that generates the magnetic fields. If you looked at an ordinary plasma ball filament, it has a magnetic field around the "tube". The "tube" is composed of moving charged particles, AKA "current flow", and the power to generate these movements in plasma comes from the "circuit energy" of the system.

 

[sol invictus]

This is essentially the heart of our disagreement in a nutshell. It is you that do not know what a "flux tube" is.

tusenfem's usage is standard across all of physics and astrophysics. A flux tube is nothing more or less than a collection of field lines (hence "flux") confined or concentrated into a roughly cylindrical volume (hence "tube").

If you knew even high school level physics you'd know that the current is the curl of the B field. So for a magnetic flux tube the current is potentially non-zero only if there is a non-zero curl. But inside the tube the field can be constant, and on the edge there might be an electric current wrapping around it (as in a solenoid) or some magnetization of the material (zero current). Other possibilities exist too, but in neither of those standard cases is any current flowing down the flux tube.

 

[Michael Mozina]

tusenfem's usage is standard across all of physics and astrophysics.

So is the term "magnetic reconnection". You'll need a better excuse than "everybody does it".

A flux tube is nothing more or less than a collection of field lines (hence "flux") confined or concentrated into a roughly cylindrical volume (hence "tube").

How did they get "constrained" into a "tube" shape exactly in your opinion?

If you knew even high school level physics you'd know that the current is the curl of the B field. So for a magnetic flux tube the current is potentially non-zero only if there is a non-zero curl.

Bingo! I also know that the solar wind is whizzing through the whole of interplanetary space at a million miles per hour, so I know that nowhere inside this solar system is curl B= 0, and current flows through the whole thing.

Those are not just intangible magnetic tubes, they are "current carrying filaments" that are "pinched" by the magnetic field that is generated by the current flow of charged particles in the tube. The "tube" is composed of moving charged particles just like we observe in an ordinary plasma ball. The movement of the solar wind and the movement of the plasma inside the plasma ball is a direct result of the charge separation between the sphere in the middle and the outside layer. In this case only the polarity is reversed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you really think that on the scale of solar magnetic loops the gyro radius of the electron has any significance?

Yes.

You are trying to make things sound profounder than they are.

You're trying to *oversimplify* the process and ignore the physics entirely!

A magnetic loop has a diameter

How does a "magnetic loop" have a "diameter" exactly? What "physical" thing makes up this "diameter" you're talking about?

It's painfully clear to me that you folks understand a lot about math and almost absolutely *nothing* about physics. What the heck do you figure allows for these "tubes" to form if not the particles that make up that "tube"? Magnetic "lines" don't form as "tubes", the plasma forms "tubes" of flowing particles! You guys keep putting the cart before the horse. That magnetic "tube" is simply following the current flow and "pinching" it into a tube shape just as it does inside of an ordinary plasma ball. There's no mystery here except why you keep trying to ignore the "current flow" that drives the parade.

of about the Earth's diameter and the field strength is about 10 Gauss (= 0.001 Tesla). What is the energy of the electron? Say lowly relativistic 2 10⁸ m/s, then if I am not mistaken,

I guess it would take a boat load of them then to add up to that much energy eh?

The "radius" your talking about is a function of the density of the plasma and the amount of current flow inside the tube. It's not related to a single electron or a single atom, but rather it is related to the "whole system" and the events within the "whole system".

 

[Michael Mozina]

No, get this into your head please: the current flowing along a mangetic flux tube CANNOT generate the field it is flowing along, no current can create an aligned magnetic field.

Boloney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

 

[Tim Thompson]

Very Amusing

No, get this into your head please: the current flowing along a mangetic flux tube CANNOT generate the field it is flowing along, no current can create an aligned magnetic field.

Boloney.

I hate to break the bad news, but the picture you just posted is a picture of what tusenfem said, a picture of what you called "baloney". Sometimes these boards can be very amusing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I hate to break the bad news, but the picture you just posted is a picture of what tusenfem said, a picture of what you called "baloney". Sometimes these boards can be very amusing.

No Tim.

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field will spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that includes radio, optical (ie. light), x-rays, and gamma rays.

Shall we now look at a the definition of a Bennett Pinch?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_pinch

A pinch is the compression of an electrically conducting filament by magnetic forces. The conductor is usually a plasma, but could also be a solid or liquid metal. In a z-pinch, the current is axial (in the z direction in a cylindrical coordinate system) and the magnetic field azimuthal; in a theta-pinch, the current is azimuthal (in the theta direction in cylindrical coordinates) and the magnetic field is axial. The phenomenon may also be referred to as a "Bennett pinch"[1] (after Willard Harrison Bennett), "electromagnetic pinch",[2] "magnetic pinch",[3] "pinch effect"[4] or "plasma pinch".[5]

Pinches occur naturally in electrical discharges such as lightning bolts,[6] the aurora,[7] current sheets,[8] and solar flares.[9] They are also produced in the laboratory, primarily for research into fusion power, but also by hobbyists

 

[Michael Mozina]

Zeuzzz and Michael Mozina:
I believe there is no more fascinating quest than understanding the nature and origin of the universe and life. I dedicate much of my reading to these subjects. So I have great interest in these discussions and I very much appreciate and admire your efforts. Unfortunately, I am limited by having only a masters degree in mathematics and an undergraduate minor in physics so that much of these discussions are beyond my skills and knowledge. As a retired person with some time on my hands, I do my best.

I humbly suggest to you, with all your math skills and physics skills, that these discussions are *not* beyond your abilities at all. They would simply like you to believe that this is the case. They have math skills to be sure, but their understanding of real "physics" at the level of particle physics is about zilch. Maybe one in ten of them have any understanding of electrical theory, and by and large their math skill are superficial in forums such as this one where they have to bark math on command. Some exceptional few might have better math skills, but by and large they aren't that impressive IMO. Most of it is "made up" math that does not have a "physical" explanation, nor is it related to anything physically tangible. None of the "problems" in their papers are mathematical in nature because they are competent in math. Their failing is at the level of physics and I can assure you that they are simply making up the math as they go. That's not real math, that's bogus nonsense they can't demonstrate here on Earth. All of it is related to their subjective (and collective) "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon and there are far more credible explanations for this phenomenon that are fully mathematically quantified and that scare the hell out of this group as whole.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411666

Don't worry about that math. I'll be happy to provide you will all the math and physical explanations you want.

The big bang concept is difficult for me -- the universe having a beginning, expanding, inflating, needing dark energy, etc. are all counter-intuitive and disturbing concepts.

It's not just you that find these to be counter-intuitive ideas. That's a growing phenomenon, especially since they stuffed "dark energy" in there about 15 years ago, and the internet started making more information available to the general public. Believe me, you aren't alone in your skepticism.

Even though I have been reading about these theories for decades from sources like (Scientific American, etc.), I wish alternative theories had more observational support simply because I find them more credible and satisfying.

I would respectfully suggest that alternative theories do have more observational support than Lambda-CMD theory, by a large margin in fact. It all depends on what you choose to focus your attention on, and where you look. They want you to compare theories based on following along with their creation mythos. You can't think like that and you have to open your mind to new ideas, especially ideas related to the redshift phenomenon. In every other respect, EU/PC theory is *FAR* more supported by observation than mainstream theory. I'll demonstrate that is this thread over the next few weeks, months and years if that is what it takes.

Having said that, I can't ignore the weight of thousands of theorists in this field who support current prevailing theories. Accusations that they have blinders on or they are merely conforming to some group dogma do not ring true.

If someone accused me of "making up" an EM field in my head and asked for physical evidence that "electricity" wasn't a figment of my imagination, I'll tell them to stick their finger in a working light socket, and I guarantee you they'd never ask me for evidence of electricity ever again.

Now why in the world is it too much to ask for them to demonstrate inflation isn't a figment of Guth's overactive imagination?

They struggle to find explanations for astronomical observations that are consistent with known principles of physics.

Hah! They "made up" the "physics" related to inflation based not on empirical testing, but based on wishful thinking and point at the sky exercises. They don't have any principles of physics that support inflation. Light does not maintain constant density over exponential increase in volume, and no known vector or scalar field in nature does. They literally created a "supernatural" construct with inflation and gave it "supernatural" physical properties that you and I can't even test here on Earth.

If any one or group of cosmologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, etc. could come up with viable alternative explanations, would they not publish their findings and be heard?

They have been published. Whether they are "heard" or not depends on the individual. Birkeland wrote about his "predictions" of coronal loops and jet and high speed solar wind 100 years ago, and most have never even read his work. They still find the solar wind to be a big "mystery" even 100 years later. Hearing is a function of access to data and the openness of one's mind. Until the dawn of the internet, the mainstream was the only one with access to data. That has all changed in the last 15 years or so with the growth of the internet. I had no access to Birkeland's work until I downloaded it from the internet. I ordered Cosmic Plasma by Alfven. Between the two of them, they opened my mind and I see that there are "better" scientific explanations for many observations.

They have as much passion for truth as you and would benefit from the esteem that would come from any theory that could overturn the current consensus.

But unlike me, many of them have written about and talked about inflation and dark energy and their professional and personal ego's are all wrapped up in "being right". I have nothing to lose as it relates to professional stature in this industry so I can speak my mind freely. Not everyone has that luxury. Many times they jobs and livelihood and food on their family's table depend on them "getting along" with their peers. That can have a dramatic influence on whether one is willing to "question the dogma" openly and honestly and with an open mind.

If there is any merit to you opinions, eventually you will be vindicated.

Exactly. I believe there is merit to EU/PC theory and I believe it will eventually be vindicated. It took the mainstream 60 something years to figure out that Birkeland was right and Chapman was wrong. He's still more than 100 years ahead of them today. He had working models. They are still "mystified" by easy things like solar wind acceleration and coronal loops and "jets" and things that Birkeland actually simulated in a lab.

If not, you have participated in an interesting discussion for old farts like me to ponder. In either case, thanks.

I hope you stick around and enjoy the discussion. I think you'll find that most EU/PC proponents have a pretty open minded and fair attitude. I've personally been busting their chops a bit, only to demonstrate that their beloved Lambda-Gumby theory is no better than any other cosmology theory out there. It's got "strengths' and weaknesses, but for "predicting" anything inside the solar system, their cosmology beliefs are almost useless. That is not true of EU theory which has not only "predicted"" solar wind acceleration, but also "simulated" it here on Earth in a lab in controlled experimentation.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

That is a link to a 160 meg PDF file that contains the bulk of Birkeland's life's work. It opened up my eyes to reality and astronomy.

 

[Perpetual Student]

"http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

That is a link to a 160 meg PDF file that contains the bulk of Birkeland's life's work. It opened up my eyes to reality and astronomy." __M. Mozina

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, thanks. I will review the file. Until just recently, I had not been familiar with Birkeland.

 

[brantc]

Dunno if this is precisely what Tim has in mind, but one of the most basic features of plasmas is that magnetic field lines are almost frozen to the plasma around them. Which means if you start with some B field, no matter how small, you can increase its magnitude tremendously through currents (not electric currents - just ordinary net-neutral flows of particles) which carry the lines with them and tangle them up. Very small seed B fields can get multiplied by huge factors, particularly when the flows are fast and turbulent.

Those basic facts are born out by theory, numerical simulations, and experiments.

Okay. So the plasma which is moved by gravity takes a magnetic seed which a little bird dropped after eating from the magnetic tree, and amplifies this using only the force of gravity.

And I doubt turbulence will amplify anything.....

 

[sol invictus]

Okay. So the plasma which is moved by gravity takes a magnetic seed which a little bird dropped after eating from the magnetic tree, and amplifies this using only the force of gravity.

Small magnetic fields are ubiquitous - they arise due to static discharges, EM radiation, ferrous materials, etc. They can come from almost anything. The relevant physics is that regardless of their initial magnitude, they very rapidly get magnified in plasmas.

And I doubt turbulence will amplify anything.....

Your doubts could hardly be less interesting. Facts are facts - now run away and play.

 

[brantc]

No, get this into your head please: the current flowing along a mangetic flux tube CANNOT generate the field it is flowing along, no current can create an aligned magnetic field.

Do you think there is a current flowing along this "flux" tube. And I bet it has a parallel vector component due to all the electrons doing their gyro dance around the slinky.

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in Orion
ttp://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml

For the mainstream a flux tube is a mathematical description having no basis in reality.

For EU a flux tube is a physical entity consisting of plasma in a tubelike form that may have either a perpendicular or parallel magnetic field depending on conditions, and carries a electric current in the form of electrons. It may consist of a neutral plasma but that doesnt take into account that like a wire as many electrons are replaced as leave.

Although I dont agree with everything Paul Bellan says I think he makes a couple of really good experimental points. My red and bold.

"PRL 95, 045002 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending
22 JULY 2005
Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation
S. You, G. S. Yun, and P. M. Bellan
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
(Received 6 February 2005; published 22 July 2005)"

"The results thus provide strong evidence for flow-driven collimation of flared magnetic-flux tubes. This process requires net electrical current, a supply of particles, and stagnation of the driven flow. In an astrophysical context, accretion disks supply plasma and flows stagnate at the lobes; a net axial current is understood to be necessary for self-confinement [26], and recent observations of helical magnetic field structure in jets are indicative of net axial current [27]. The electrical circuit is then closed by radial currents in the accretion disk, returning via the cocoon.
Active solar regions also exhibit unneutralized electrical currents [28]. We emphasize that strong flows and collimation can be driven by even modest amounts of current, before reaching the kink instability (high current)
threshold.
This work was supported by U.S. DoE and NSF.

[24] S. Mar et al., J. Phys. B 33, 1169 (2000).
[25] H. R. Griem, Plasma Spectroscopy (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1964).
[26] A. Ferrari, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36, 539 (1998).
[27] Y. Uchida et al., Astrophys. J. 600, 88 (2004).
[28] M. S. Wheatland,"

ttp://ve4xm.caltech.edu/webpub/2005%20You%20Yun%20Bellan%20Phys%20Rev%20Letter%20Jet%20Collimation.pdf

 

[brantc]

Small magnetic fields are ubiquitous - they arise due to static discharges, EM radiation, ferrous materials, etc. They can come from almost anything. The relevant physics is that regardless of their initial magnitude, they very rapidly get magnified in plasmas.



Your doubts could hardly be less interesting. Facts are facts - now run away and play.

Simulations are not facts. Sorry.....

 

[sol invictus]

Simulations are not facts. Sorry.....

Yeah, you're right - your ignorant guesses are far more reliable than numerical simulations of Maxwell's equations in plasma, programmed by experts, run on massively parallel supercomputers over years, and supported by observations and experiments.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Your list is silly Reality Check. Not all those publications are core areas of PC. Many of them merely act as supporting evidence of one aspect of plasma cosmology. Many of them merely demonstrate that plasma scaling exists, and thus is a valid aspect of plasma cosmology which many of the models are based on. Many of them merely demonstrate the importance of plasma in the the universe, which is often overlooked by BB exclusively gravitationally based theories, but central to plasma cosmology. They are no more core aspects of plasma cosmology than the orbit of Neptune is to the Big Bang.

(bold added)

IIRC, you stated, in a post near the end of the thread as it was then, that one of the "core areas of PC" is this:

Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it [plasma cosmology] assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution

(bold added)

And you gave as the source a person who is unquestionably a contemporary giant in the PC world, Eric Lerner.

Is this still a core aspect of PC?

So, lets have another go. You say we need to give comparisons between PC and BBT to see what they predict differently.

Maybe listening to Lerner and Peratts breif overview here would be a good idea to start with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

BBT: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.
PC: The universe is assumed infinite in time and constantly evolving.

BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.
PC: The universe is filamentary and clumpy. The large scale structure of the cosmos will not be homogeneous but highly filamentary.

BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.
PC: The CMB will not be entirely isotropic, certianly not the extent the Big Bang originally predicted.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.
PC: The anisotropy of the CBR will show a strong preferred orientation in the sky. Mainly due to magnetic anisotropy which occurs in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction.

BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.
PC: Charge separation occurs in outer space due to various complex non linear plasma characteristics.

BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.
PC: Energy can not be created out of nothing, in accordance with conservation of energy.

BBT: The dark energy field can create energy out of nothing.
PC: Bollocks.

BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.


There probably a few more about primordial elements too, etc. I'll get back to this list in a bit.

I see others have demolished this list rather robustly, so I'll only comment on the last, the one about "known physics" and "well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics", to ask you whether a 'just because (Lerner said so)'* reason for "not accepting" the application of the theory of General Relativity (GR) to the universe as a whole is consistent with science.

ETA: Are you yet able to cite any papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, which report the results of "laboratory based verifiable physics" on the Arpian intrinsic redshift? And no, I don't mean those of Emile Wolf, because, as you know full well, the Wolf effect cannot account for the fact that the redshift of quasar host galaxies is the same as that of the quasars themselves (as has been known since at least ~1983).

* and let's note that Lerner's intellectual father, Alfvén, was not so lacking in integrity as to ever have made this kind of creationist-like pronouncement.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Do you think there is a current flowing along this "flux" tube. And I bet it has a parallel vector component due to all the electrons doing their gyro dance around the slinky.

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in Orion
ttp://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml

For the mainstream a flux tube is a mathematical description having no basis in reality.

For EU a flux tube is a physical entity consisting of plasma in a tubelike form that may have either a perpendicular or parallel magnetic field depending on conditions, and carries a electric current in the form of electrons. It may consist of a neutral plasma but that doesnt take into account that like a wire as many electrons are replaced as leave.

Although I dont agree with everything Paul Bellan says I think he makes a couple of really good experimental points. My red and bold.

"PRL 95, 045002 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending
22 JULY 2005
Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation
S. You, G. S. Yun, and P. M. Bellan
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
(Received 6 February 2005; published 22 July 2005)"

"The results thus provide strong evidence for flow-driven collimation of flared magnetic-flux tubes. This process requires net electrical current, a supply of particles, and stagnation of the driven flow. In an astrophysical context, accretion disks supply plasma and flows stagnate at the lobes; a net axial current is understood to be necessary for self-confinement [26], and recent observations of helical magnetic field structure in jets are indicative of net axial current [27]. The electrical circuit is then closed by radial currents in the accretion disk, returning via the cocoon.
Active solar regions also exhibit unneutralized electrical currents [28]. We emphasize that strong flows and collimation can be driven by even modest amounts of current, before reaching the kink instability (high current)
threshold.
This work was supported by U.S. DoE and NSF.

[24] S. Mar et al., J. Phys. B 33, 1169 (2000).
[25] H. R. Griem, Plasma Spectroscopy (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1964).
[26] A. Ferrari, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36, 539 (1998).
[27] Y. Uchida et al., Astrophys. J. 600, 88 (2004).
[28] M. S. Wheatland,"

ttp://ve4xm.caltech.edu/webpub/2005%20You%20Yun%20Bellan%20Phys%20Rev%20Letter%20Jet%20Collimation.pdf

HI brantc.

I'm a bit late coming (back) to this thread.

Would you mind telling me what this post of yours, and indeed nearly all yours in this thread, has to do with 'Plasma Cosmology'?