Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

Well in light of Tim Thompson answer to having a look at my list by saying

I have little enough time & patience for all this and I see the list as a farcical waste of time.

just compete and utter waste of your time Tim, sorry there sport Have you read the thread title PLASMA cosmology woo or not! My list may have some bearing in this thread.

And DeiRenDopa's complete cock up of the whole exercise with

I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ...

I think DeiRenDopa may not even be on the same book, letterlone the same page here!

Can you see the point on understanding the basic concept here DeiRenDopa?

And Reality cheque

I do not know much about plasmas since my degree was in solid state physics but I will have a go at it

I suggest if you are going to pitch in, you should know a little more, just ask Tusenfem or read the list or heaven forbid maybe even ask me.

And Tusenfem me 'ol , there were not many points on that list we DIS agreed on! I think space as a plasma was one, along with a large collection of charged particles constituting a plasma and I think you threw in something about your magnetic field room having no magnetic fields, which we all agree on

But over all not many disagreements in communications, understandings, terms, words, grammar and spelling of my basic understanding of one of the foundational blocks of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE/PLASMA COSMOLOGY paradigm PLASMA

So in lite of all that carry on by our "mainstream" coherents, I present a revised list below,

I think it's a little less ambiguous than the first as well as adding a new property to an electron flow thru a plasma. The Bennett or Z pinch.

But basically the same 15 point list. while not my final theory it will help explain some of the points I would like to make on my EU/PC model, to our less versed readers.

So unfortunately Tim Thomson, I strongly believe that the farcical waste of time you think this list is, is indeed not and your post was complete and utter male bovine bowel movement

You give me just a yes or no answer there Tim Thompson and I'll give your question a go!

 

[Sol88]

My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

 

[sol invictus]

My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of the observable Universe is plasma.

Still wrong. I don't even know what that means. If you said, "99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma", that would at least make sense - but it would still be totally wrong.

 

[Sol88]

Would that constitute a sound enough understanding of plasma to not having to keep backing up the most basic of claims wrt plasma and it's behavior?? most probably not according to the high standard of consistency set out here!

So I think my knowledge is sound, seems only my logic may be off!

But we'll see!

Hope my grammar and spelling were ok for you this time Perpetual student!

As a non-physicist, I find it interesting that the passionate advocates of these theories have trouble with English grammar, can't spell, tend to make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics. These characteristics certainly taint whatever slight merit their positions might otherwise have.

Please do not let my hopeless spelling get in the way of your understanding of the EU/PC paradigm, never have been real good at writ'n stuff onn paper, Thank frock 4 spall cheuqe eh!

Also

make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics

You may want to Talk to Tim Thompson, DeinDopa, Reality Check and Sol invictus about some of those points before you go

 

[Sol88]

Still wrong. I don't even know what that means. If you said, "99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma", that would at least make sense - but it would still be totally wrong.

Fixed to read 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma, less ambiguous, I think!

I had that written down next to me, it just didn't complete the journey from my eyeballs to my fingers, as noted by Perpetual students observation on my oft spelling and grammar mistakes!

Any others?

 

[sol invictus]

Fixed to read 99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma, less ambiguous!

Less ambiguous - and still completely wrong. Plasma cannot possibly account for more than about 20-25% of the matter in the universe. We don't know for sure what the rest is, but it certainly isn't plasma.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I'm sorry that you think this perpetual student.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I may have done this, that would be greatly appreciated.

I always try to refrain from Ad Homs, unlike some certain other people around here that have a habit of continually calling people crackpots, nutters, cult followers, or other disparaging remarks. Comments like these just makes you look like you dont have an argument to back up.

Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well in light of Tim Thompson answer to having a look at my list by saying just compete and utter waste of your time Tim, sorry there sport Have you read the thread title PLASMA cosmology woo or not! My list may have some bearing in this thread.

And DeiRenDopa's complete cock up of the whole exercise with

I think DeiRenDopa may not even be on the same book, letterlone the same page here!

Can you see the point on understanding the basic concept here DeiRenDopa?

And Reality cheque

I suggest if you are going to pitch in, you should know a little more, just ask Tusenfem or read the list or heaven forbid maybe even ask me.

And Tusenfem me 'ol , there were not many points on that list we DIS agreed on! I think space as a plasma was one, along with a large collection of charged particles constituting a plasma and I think you threw in something about your magnetic field room having no magnetic fields, which we all agree on

But over all not many disagreements in communications, understandings, terms, words, grammar and spelling of my basic understanding of one of the foundational blocks of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE/PLASMA COSMOLOGY paradigm PLASMA

So in lite of all that carry on by our "mainstream" coherents, I present a revised list below,

I think it's a little less ambiguous than the first as well as adding a new property to an electron flow thru a plasma. The Bennett or Z pinch.

But basically the same 15 point list. while not my final theory it will help explain some of the points I would like to make on my EU/PC model, to our less versed readers.

So unfortunately Tim Thomson, I strongly believe that the farcical waste of time you think this list is, is indeed not and your post was complete and utter male bovine bowel movement

You give me just a yes or no answer there Tim Thompson and I'll give your question a go!

Are you expecting me - DRD - to comment on, or respond to, this post in any way?

 

[sol invictus]

Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

Who are the exceptions?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

You may, of course, choose to write "EU/PC assumptions" in any form you wish.

Just as you may choose to ignore what I have written, in response to your request (you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

And you may wish to (keep) changing your stated intent, wrt this list.

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

 

[Sol88]

sol invictus

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Fixed to read 99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma, less ambiguous!

Less ambiguous - and still completely wrong. Plasma cannot possibly account for more than about 20-25% of the matter in the universe. We don't know for sure what the rest is, but it certainly isn't plasma.

Ok lets take it step further shall we? Hold my hand while we go on this voyage of logic, based on an assumption on my list namely point 1 and 12, First point 12.

12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.

And the electromagnetic spectrum consist of...

The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation frequencies.[1] The "electromagnetic spectrum" (usually just spectrum) of an object is the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation from that particular object.

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below frequencies used for modern radio (at the long-wavelength end) through gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction the size of an atom. It is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, and the long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself (see physical cosmology), although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous.

So we have basically from radio to Gamma energies that we can observe the Universe in, agreed?

But another article mentions

The violet and red "ends" of the optical spectrum are not really "ends" at all, but rather simply the limits to the portion of the EM spectrum to which our eyes are sensitive. Beyond red light lies the region known as the infrared, which is also simply known as heat radiation. (The fact that light is just energy may be most obvious in this portion of the spectrum!) The longest wavelength infrared radiation blends into the shortest wavelength radio waves, and the radio region extends out to the longest wavelengths we are able to measure.

Likewise, beyond the violet of the optical spectrum lies a broad region known as the ultraviolet, which blends into the X-ray region, followed by the the shortest wavelength radiation known, the gamma rays. Again, there is no edge or "end" of the spectrum at shortest wavelengths, although we reach a practical limit as to what can be measured. (The shortest wavelength gamma rays are on a par with the size of an atomic nucleus!)

So our "ends" of the spectrum may not yet be quite so black and white and our ability to observe the entire range of EM phenomena in the Universe, may yet be expanded again due to advancement in instrumentation

Look at what it did when we put a Geiger counter into orbit/space/Universe or into point 1

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.

and on November 3, 1957 we found out.

Sputnik 2 detected the Earth's outer radiation belt in the far northern latitudes, but the significance of the elevated radiation was not realized. In Australia Professor Harry Messel intercepted the signals but the Soviets would not provide the code and the Australians would not send the data. In 1958, with Sputnik 3 they began to cooperate and confirmed the findings of the US Explorer satellites.

Still may not be fully realized today!

Something screwy with the cut and paste from that site? Looks like it's adding the information in the hyperlinks or some such thing!

But as you can see there been some form of disagreement in science wrt plasma, starting sometime around 1900 with K.Birkeland

Abstract
Birkeland was a Norwegian physicist, born in Oslo. In 1900, he identified and then simulated the charged electron-magnetic flux tube connection between the Sun and Earth that produces the aurora. He studied the zodiacal light during expeditions to the Sudan and Egypt. Birkeland committed suicide in a depression associated with the rejection of his auroral theories by his contemporary established...

adsabs.harvard.edu

Any how that's a whole different thread there but basically he (K.Birkeland) said

In 1913, Birkeland may have been 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 (a plasma see point 1) 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. (Ref. See notes)

My bolding

It's totally reasonable

So my logic goes if the EM spectrum MAY extend beyond known (observable) RADIO and GAMMA energies then the same 99% of plasma that we can see in space will increase stepwise with our increase in observational tools. We will just see more of the same 99%

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

 

[Sol88]

DRD wrote:

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

We shall see, shall we not!

List needed clarification so the TERMS were standard as per YOUR request!

(you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

If you think that will aid this thread, then no worries cobber!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ok lets take it step further shall we? Hold my hand while we go on this voyage of logic, based on an assumption on my list namely point 1 and 12, First point 12.



And the electromagnetic spectrum consist of...

So we have basically from radio to Gamma energies that we can observe the Universe in, agreed?

But another article mentions

So our "ends" of the spectrum may not yet be quite so black and white and our ability to observe the entire range of EM phenomena in the Universe, may yet be expanded again due to advancement in instrumentation

Look at what it did when we put a Geiger counter into orbit/space/Universe or into point 1 and on November 3, 1957 we found out.

Still may not be fully realized today!

Something screwy with the cut and paste from that site? Looks like it's adding the information in the hyperlinks or some such thing!

But as you can see there been some form of disagreement in science wrt plasma, starting sometime around 1900 with K.Birkeland adsabs.harvard.edu

Any how that's a whole different thread there but basically he (K.Birkeland) said My bolding

It's totally reasonable

So my logic goes if the EM spectrum MAY extend beyond known (observable) RADIO and GAMMA energies then the same 99% of plasma that we can see in space will increase stepwise with our increase in observational tools. We will just see more of the same 99%

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

(bold added)

No.

Sol88, you may wish to take tusenfem's advice and get yourself a science degree, from a good university, with a major in plasma physics. That way you will avoid a great deal of wasted effort, in trying to draw scientifically-sound conclusions from the sorts of sources you seem to favour.

Wrt this post of yours that I'm quoting, there is a very, very, very good reason why going much further into the radio region (i.e. to lower frequencies) won't tell us much about anything other than conditions in the solar wind/IPM (HINT: plasma frequency) ... and that's just one point ...

 

[sol invictus]

<snip>

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

That was so incoherent I can only guess at what you are trying to say. Is it that maybe dark matter is a plasma which somehow only affects the part of the EM spectrum we cannot detect, because the wavelength is too long?

If so, that's completely impossible. All plasmas affect EM radiation very strongly across all wavelengths. One of the only things we know for sure about it is that DM is NOT plasma.

 

[Sol88]

Tim Thompson wrote:

So I will present one concrete point of my own, and you can react as you see fit, if at all.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Magnetic fields require an electric current.
A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

How so Tim Thompson ?

My understanding of galactic magnetic fields (the biggest we've observed)

The Origin of Galactic Magnetic Fields

The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection. This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field.

I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim! as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

and

6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.

and

7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

My understanding of dynamo theory, from the link above

The most promising mechanism is the dynamo which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy (Beck et al. 1996, Rüdiger & Hollerbach 2004, Brandenburg & Subramanian 2005). With a suitable configuration of the fluid or gas flow, a strong magnetic field with a stationary or oscillating configuration can be generated from a weak seed field. In astronomical objects like stars, planets or galaxies, an efficient dynamo needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation and is called alpha-Omega dynamo. It generates large-scale regular fields, even if the seed field was turbulent ("order out of chaos").

So you need suitable configuration of gas or fluid for an efficient dynamo, which needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation of said suitably configured gas or fluid to turn mechanical energy into magnetic energy! Simple

Ok that could work, but why would point's 3,6 and 7 not work more efficiently than an alpha-Omega dynamo?

or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DRD wrote:

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

We shall see, shall we not!

Indeed.

Perhaps we have already seen ...

List needed clarification so the TERMS were standard as per YOUR request!

Then please re-read what you wrote - from post 1642 onward - and my responses.

In particular, notice how you went from "I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list" (bold added) to "My Revised EU/PC assumptions"; do you understand just how different these two are?

You might also take some time to read post 1712, slowly and carefully, paying particular attention to the two questions at the head of each of my lists:

Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?

And

In light of the clarifications Sol88 has provided, does Sol88 appear to understand these terms/phrases in a manner consistent with their common use by physicists?

You may also wish to consider the possibility that (seriously, and deliberately?) mis-representing what others have written will very likely contribute to a breakdown in communication.

(you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

If you think that will aid this thread, then no worries cobber!

What is it that you are requesting clarification of?

 

[tusenfem]

Dsjeeeeezeuzzzzzzzzzzzzz could you put any more platitudes in this thread, Sol88.
So, you have a 12 point list now, which you think describes the plasma universe or something or other, and some of the points are not even correct. Ah well, who cares at this point.

And actually, reading some more here on this page, I find that one of your greatest mistakes is to think that charge separation is the generaration mechanism for electric fields in the universe. However, that is incorrect, 90% of all electric fields are created by moving magnetic fields (if not more). Charge separation can only occur in very special cases in plasmas, e.g. through double layers. However, charge separation is one of the minor minor powers in cosmological plasma physics.

Now, I am sure you are going to present us a mathematically well developed theory which describes why plasma cosmology as adhered by the EU/ES/EC/PU/PC gang is superior to the mainstream description.

I take it from your last rant that you now actually believe that electromagnetic radiation is plasma too?

What kind of "radiation" do you think the Earth's radiation belts consist of?

Even the guy from the encyclopedia that you quoted gets his stuff wrong. Birkeland never proposed that there were "flux tubes" coming from the Sun to the Earth. He only posited that electric corpuscules came from the Sun, which got caught by the Earth's mangetic field and create the aurora (read for a great scientific biography of Birkeland the very nice book Nothern Lights: The True Story of the Man Who Unlocked the Secrets of the Aurora Borealis written by Lucy Jago.

Although, earlier than Birkeland the connection between sunspots, solar flares, magnetic fields and their connection to aurora on the Earth was already discussed half a century before Birkeland (read the fantastic book The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark[/quote] which starts with the great magnetic storm of 1859 (150 years ago this year and basically the start of sun-earth-system physics).

So, now, let us look at real plasma physics, show us your model Sol88.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

Who are the exceptions?

iantresman is the only one I can think of who might be such - of those who have posted in this section of the JREF Forum - but I do not know if PS has read any of his posts or not.

 

[Ziggurat]

I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim!

Except "charge separation" is not a mechanism. It's an effect, and it has to be driven by something else. And that something else needs to provide energy in order to do it, because it costs energy to separate charges. What would be driving this charge separation?

as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

Those points don't address what's driving your proposed charge separation. And it can't be electricity: electricity always opposes the separation of charges. So what else is there? Magnetism? Well, that won't work either, because you're claiming that charge separation drives the currents which create those magnetic fields, so you don't have a magnetic field until after you get charge separation. Unless you think it works like a galaxy-sized perpetual motion machine, but if you believe that, there's no point in any further discussion. So I'll assume you just didn't think far enough to realize that you don't actually have a mechanism to drive your charge separation.

 

[Sol88]

Tim Thompson wrote:

So I will present one concrete point of my own, and you can react as you see fit, if at all.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Magnetic fields require an electric current.
A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

How so Tim Thompson ?

My understanding of galactic magnetic fields (the biggest we've observed)

The Origin of Galactic Magnetic Fields

The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection. This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field.

I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim! as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

and

6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.

and

7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

My understanding of dynamo theory, from the link above

The most promising mechanism is the dynamo which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy (Beck et al. 1996, Rüdiger & Hollerbach 2004, Brandenburg & Subramanian 2005). With a suitable configuration of the fluid or gas flow, a strong magnetic field with a stationary or oscillating configuration can be generated from a weak seed field. In astronomical objects like stars, planets or galaxies, an efficient dynamo needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation and is called alpha-Omega dynamo. It generates large-scale regular fields, even if the seed field was turbulent ("order out of chaos").

So you need suitable configuration of gas or fluid for an efficient dynamo, which needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation of said suitably configured gas or fluid to turn mechanical energy into magnetic energy! Simple

Ok that could work, but why would point's 3,6 and 7 not work more efficiently than an alpha-Omega dynamo?

or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!