Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[tusenfem]

I haven't seen a response to sol88 question: "Is there charge seperation in space."

That is a fundamental question. But the answer is clear enough NASA has confirmed 'charge seperation in space'.

You might have missed my discussion about double layers. Also, Tim Thomson never denied that charge separation in the universe can exist, however, he did ask Sol88 how charge separation is generated. Also, in plasmas, charge separation is rather hard to maintain because of the high mobility of the charge carriers.

I'm always confounded when I read these forums, there are many of them, by good faith folks who deny that electromagnetism, a fundamental force, 39 times stronger than gravity that is more dynamic, having two qualities, attraction and repulsion wouldn't have a major role in space dynamics at all structural levels.

Wow, only 39 times stronger?? This must be a typo.
Do you know exactly for which situation this is the case?
Also the fact that EM forces have 2 qualities makes that it can be screened (see e.g. the deBye sphere) and thus have its "strength" and "influence" limited.

The scientific evidence is there for all to see, first confirmed by in situ observation & measurement in near-space by NASA, starting in 1973 with confirmation of the electromagnetic properties of the Birkeland currents between the Sun and the Earth, additional in situ observations & measurements have only extended Sciences knowledge and understanding of the presence of electromagnetic forces in near-space.

Actually, the existence of Birkeland currents was proved in 1966 already.
Indeed, we find lots of electrodynamic processes in the universe, thank goodness we do, otherwise I would be out of a job!
However, I fail to see what kind of "birkeland currents between the sun and the Earth" were discovered in 1973. Could you enlighten us? I guess this is the first observation of a flux rope in the solar wind, not really a Birkeland current, and definitely not connecting sun and Earth.

Subsequent, in situ observation & measurement by NASA has confirmed electromagnetic forces are present in the interplanetary medium and have been detected around both Jupiter and Saturn.

Infact, wherever Man has been able to send in situ observation & measurement apparatus, the presence of electromagnetic phenomenon has been confirmed.

Can the deniers point to one specific incident where electromagnetism hasn't been found by in situ observation & measurement when Man was able to get in situ observation & measurement apparatus into position?

"The deniers" do not claim there are no electromagnetic effects in astrophysics, otherwise there would be no such thing as plasmaastrophysics and I would not have a PhD. What "the deniers" deny is claims that electromagnetic forces play a major role in e.g. the orbit of a star around the centre of a galaxy. However, if you, anaconda, can show us that we are wrong, I would love to see you go through the derivation.

In any normal scientfic proceeding that consistent detection of a fundamental force, electromagnetism, would be cause to conclude it is likely that beyond where Science can send in situ observation & measurement apparatus (satellites and probes), there also is electromagnetism at work.

Yet, it seems that "modern" astrophysicists are dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way.

I dunno where you get this idea. In 1984 I started studying (plasma)astrophysic at Utrecht University, and have not left the plasma and electrodynamics field since. Writing papers on double layers in astrophysics, the Europa flux tube in Jupiter's magnetosphere, field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere and mirrormode waves in Venus's magnetosheath.

The thing is, when I discussed flux tube interchange in Jupiter's magnetosphere, is has little to do with electromagnetics and everything to do with centripetal/buoyancy forces, ALTHOUGH dealing with (magnetized) plasmas. One just has to know when to use what force/theory, and THAT is totally lost in EU.

And it started from the beginning, with Birkeland's electromagnetic hypothesis for the Northern Lights. From 1903, when Birkeland first postulated his ideas until 1973 when satellites confrmed Birkeland's hypothesis was matched to reality, "modern" astrophysicists were in denial.

Could it just be possible, that preconceived ideas held by "modern" astrophysicists have an impact on their approach to electromagnetism.

Yes, it is true that Birkeland was not believed, especially not by the very important Chapman and his ideas were kept out of the journals. That was a very bad situation, but ey, don't blame us for what happened 100 years ago.

And modern physics were not in denial about magnetic fields and currents and stuff. You should read the book The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark which starts with the enormous magnetic storm of 1859, and discusses the development of the sun-earth connection from there. This shows that Birkeland was not just by himself, but that there were lots of ideas about how stuff from the sun influenced the Earth.

"Modern" astrophysics is full of plasma physics, even before your ominous 1973. Is seems you have a rather skewed view of modern science.

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Check, do you concede there are LARGE problems at this time with mainstreams understand of dark matter?

There are no problems with the fact that dark matter exists.
There are problems about its properties.

I mean come on! Abell 754 How do shock waves create 100-million degree gas (is that F or C?) Where's there starburst that should be there!

Stanard plasma physics (and K).

Sure it's only a press release, but why no mention of plasma only 100-million degree gas? would it be just as easy to say plasma?

Yet again for your simple mind Sol88:
Plasma is a specific kind of ionized gas. Not all ionized gas is plasma.

 

[Anaconda]

@ tusenfem:

I have to apologize in advance, I don't have the operations mastered on this forum, yet.

tusenfem stated: "The thing is, when I discussed flux tube interchange in Jupiter's magnetosphere, is has little to do with electromagnetics and everything to do with centripetal/buoyancy forces, ALTHOUGH dealing with (magnetized) plasmas. One just has to know when to use what force/theory, and THAT is totally lost in EU."

"...and everything to do with centripetal/buoyancy forces..."

Hannes Alfven, founder of Plasma Cosmology and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics warned that treating space plasma with a fluid dynamics model was a wrong direction to go.

Thanks for pointing out my error: Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Of course, Birkeland was not alone, Tesla and many others recognized the centrality of electromagnetism.

The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism.

No, I've studied the history fairly thoroughly. Actually, it is the history and the current day denial that paint a picture of willful behavior on the part of astrophysicists.

Speaking of double layers, the dynamo of electromagnetism, the accelerator, if you will, since plasma physics is known to be scalable, what is the limitation on the size and power of double layers?

Judging by the length of the discussion, nobody on in this forum changes his mind.

Possibly members and other passers by read the discussion and it impacts their thinking, but for large numbers, apparently, no level of proof can be offered that will persude them.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

@ tusenfem:

I have to apologize in advance, I don't have the operations mastered on this forum, yet.

tusenfem stated: "The thing is, when I discussed flux tube interchange in Jupiter's magnetosphere, is has little to do with electromagnetics and everything to do with centripetal/buoyancy forces, ALTHOUGH dealing with (magnetized) plasmas. One just has to know when to use what force/theory, and THAT is totally lost in EU."

"...and everything to do with centripetal/buoyancy forces..."

Hannes Alfven, founder of Plasma Cosmology and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics warned that treating space plasma with a fluid dynamics model was a wrong direction to go.

Thanks for pointing out my error: Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Of course, Birkeland was not alone, Tesla and many others recognized the centrality of electromagnetism.

The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism.

No, I've studied the history fairly thoroughly. Actually, it is the history and the current day denial that paint a picture of willful behavior on the part of astrophysicists.

Speaking of double layers, the dynamo of electromagnetism, the accelerator, if you will, since plasma physics is known to be scalable, what is the limitation on the size and power of double layers?

Judging by the length of the discussion, nobody on in this forum changes his mind.

Possibly members and other passers by read the discussion and it impacts their thinking, but for large numbers, apparently, no level of proof can be offered that will persude them.

Hello again,

Several others - than tusenfem - responded to your post (myself, Zig, RC); I do hope that you will do us each the courtesy of replying to us as well.

You wrote: "Hannes Alfven, founder of Plasma Cosmology and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics warned that treating space plasma with a fluid dynamics model was a wrong direction to go."

At face value this seems like an example of the logical fallacy called argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority). Did you intend it to be? If not, then would you mind explaining your point without the appeal to the authority of a Nobel Prize winner?

You wrote: "The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism."

Are you referring to a particular period in history? Does this statement refer to 'today' (say, astrophysics since the 1980s)?

You wrote (I added bold): "Actually, it is the history and the current day denial that paint a picture of willful behavior on the part of astrophysicists."

This is a very strong statement, as I'm sure you are aware. As you state that you've "studied the history fairly thoroughly", perhaps you'd be kind enough to summarise how you arrived at this conclusion (denial and willful behaviour) wrt the current day (say, the last three decades)?

BTW, once you reach a post count of 15, you'll be able to use the full capabilities of this forum (the limit is in place to reduce the amount of spam posting, I guess).

 

[Reality Check]

Of course, Birkeland was not alone, Tesla and many others recognized the centrality of electromagnetism.

The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism.

Hi Anaconda and welcome to the forum.

What is the "centrality of electromagnetism"?

 

[tusenfem]

Hannes Alfven, founder of Plasma Cosmology and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics warned that treating space plasma with a fluid dynamics model was a wrong direction to go.

However, Alfvén's child, MHD, is very useful and effective in plasma astrophysics and space physics. Just quoting Alfvén is not enough, one has to know, as (almost) all plasma astrophysicist and space physicists know, what theory to use when. When I want to look at the "fluid scale" of the plasma then MHD is good enough. When I want to look at small scale stuff, I need to use plasma physics. If I want to look at interchanging flux tubes I look at rather down-to-earth centripital forces. And all these approaches are confirmed by observations and experiments, either by satellites or in the laboratory.

Thanks for pointing out my error: Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Yeah, but you forgot about the second part of my comment there, do you know in what case this applies? Reality Check already answered it for you, the forces (grav and E) between a proton and an electron at 1 m distance. And did you look at the deBye length? If I place a single extra charge in a plasma, its influence is shielded for distances greater than 1 deBye length. Also, in general plasmas are quasi neutral.

Of course, Birkeland was not alone, Tesla and many others recognized the centrality of electromagnetism.

Nope, that is not what I meant, and I am sure Birkeland did not think that electromagnetism is the main force keeping a star in its orbit around the centre of the galaxy. THAT is what EU/ES/EC/PU/PC is claiming, but for which we cannot even get a simple calculation about how the gravitational and electromagnetic forces compare in this situation. Nor do we know which electromagnetic force is supposed to be working on the star. Simple things that the EU proponent do not want or cannot (probably the latter) answer. Maybe you can clear us up about this?

The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism.

No, I've studied the history fairly thoroughly. Actually, it is the history and the current day denial that paint a picture of willful behavior on the part of astrophysicists.

Not true, Chapman's influence was only in Europe, not in the US.

But you cannot keep on blaming us for what happened 100 years ago. Science has moved on and plasma physics is a MAJOR player in astrophysics.

Speaking of double layers, the dynamo of electromagnetism, the accelerator, if you will, since plasma physics is known to be scalable, what is the limitation on the size and power of double layers?

Whatever do you mean with "dynamo of electromagnetism"? A double layer is just a small scale (several 10s of deBye lengths) charge separation in a plasma, either driven by the presence of a current or by a boundary of two plasmas with different properties. There is absolutely NO dynamo there, but maybe you understand the word dynamo different from its usual definition.

Like I said, the size of a double layer is several 10s of deBye lengths.
The "power" of a double layer is a nonsense question, because DLs have no power. You might want to know how strong the electric fields in the DLs can be, and they vary greatly. You can read all you need in Michael Raadu's monograph The physics of double layers and their role in astrophysics (if you have no access I have the pdf). Only in the most extreme cases (e.g. in solar prominence loops with high currents) can real strong double layers exist (see e.g. my paper Strong double layers, existence criteria, and annihilation: an application to solar flares, freely available from ADS).

Double layers are interesting, but they are not magical.

Judging by the length of the discussion, nobody on in this forum changes his mind.

Possibly members and other passers by read the discussion and it impacts their thinking, but for large numbers, apparently, no level of proof can be offered that will persude them.

Well, THE problem in this "discussion" is that the EU proponents never give us anything substantial, e.g. the simple question about the star around the galaxy. And most of the time we (the deniers or the mainstreamers or whatever you want to call us) find out that the EU proponents don't have the foggiest idea about real (plasma)physics, although they (Sol88, Zeuzzz, Michael Mozina, brantc, etc. claim that the EU is all based on Hannes Alfvén's theories, but when asked to calculate something, one either draws a blank or one gets the answer that the EU math is not yet sufficient.

What gives? Why no real math? Could it be that when you calculate EU you find that it leads to nothing? Not even on THE forum for EU (thunderbolts) there is only handwaving and nothing more. No wonder we deniers do not change our minds, because we do not get presented anything that might even remotely be lucid enough to make us consider changing our minds.

(and to be clear, after writing that whole stuff about the Buneman instability, I am NOT going to calculate what kind of force can keep a start in its orbit around the centre of a galaxy. Actually, I did give somewhere, probably in this thread, some pointers to how to start doing this. So EU peeps, start working and change our minds!!!!!)

 

[Dancing David]

Judging by the length of the discussion, nobody on in this forum changes his mind.

Possibly members and other passers by read the discussion and it impacts their thinking, but for large numbers, apparently, no level of proof can be offered that will persude them.

Hiya Anaconda! Welcome.

here is the deal.

1. Model.
2. Predictions.
3. Observations.

I will ask you what process the PC or EU models.
What predictions does it make.
What data matches those predictions.

So far we have not had a model, we do not have predictions and we do not have observations.

So , we are much more open minded than you think, perhaps a model would be a good place to start.

there are very good reasons to ask for one.

So which model do you present?

In the interaction between the earth and the moon, which is larger? EM forces or gravity?

Please present the model you wish to discuss.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thanks for pointing out my error: Electromagnetism is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

No. See post 2040. This figure is only applicable to the attractive interaction between a single electron and a single proton, with no shielding. But that's not what the universe looks like: almost all the charge in the universe is shielded by opposite charges, almost all the matter in the universe has no net charge on the scale of cubic meters, let alone cubic lightyears. Gravity, however, cannot be shielded. And so gravity is FAR stronger than electromagnetism when you look at large length scales.

The point is that astrophysicists who dominated the study of astronomy did not recognize the centrality of electromagnetism.

You keep stating this, but not only is its meaning vague and ambiguous, the most likely meaning (that it's stronger than gravity) are simply wrong. Can you do any calculations to demonstrate that electromagnetic forces are stronger than gravitational forces at stellar and galactic length scales? Because I can do (and have done) calculations to show that's simply not true.

No, I've studied the history fairly thoroughly.

It's not your knowledge of history I think is lacking, but your knowledge of physics.

Actually, it is the history and the current day denial that paint a picture of willful behavior on the part of astrophysicists.

Speaking of double layers, the dynamo of electromagnetism, the accelerator, if you will, since plasma physics is known to be scalable, what is the limitation on the size and power of double layers?

Possibly members and other passers by read the discussion and it impacts their thinking, but for large numbers, apparently, no level of proof can be offered that will persude them.

So what level of proof is required? I can tell you what I require: calculations. That's also the proof I offer, simple calculations based on Freshman-level physics which demonstrate that EU model claims don't work. Most of the EU folks don't accept that level of proof. Hell, most of them can't even do any calculations. How about you? Can you do any calculations? Will you accept calculations as proof?

 

[Anaconda]

Guys, I decline to play shot gun roulette (and no, I'm not going to bother defining it). As I originally stated back on the Bridgman post, a scatter gun approach is not productive.

I can run around trying to put out spot fires or conduct a discussion on a tightly focussed subject matter, I choose the latter.

I've established the electromagnetism is common in near-space around Earth and the interplanetary medium, along with gravity, I might add. (Unless, there are some still in denial about that concept.) And, no, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel. You guys have been discussing this for some time, and if you don't know that electromagnetism is common in the solar system -- I can't help you.

The two questions I put forward as possible discussion points were synchrotron radiation being a product of electric currents and double layers. Which one would you like to discuss?

tusenfem stated: "Whatever do you mean with "dynamo of electromagnetism"? A double layer is just a small scale (several 10s of deBye lengths) charge separation in a plasma, either driven by the presence of a current or by a boundary of two plasmas with different properties. There is absolutely NO dynamo there, but maybe you understand the word dynamo different from its usual definition."

That's in the laboratory, but electromagnetism is known to be scalable up to 14 orders of magnitude if not up to 20 orders of magnitude or beyond. No limit on scalability has been encountered, yet for electromagnetism.

If that is true, then tusenfem, your discussion has some validity in the laboratory, but again, I ask you, tusenfem, what is the limit on the size and power of double layers?

After all, with the scalability of electromagnetism established, then to contend that double layers don't also scale up, some identifiable factor of limitation must be identified or it shall be assumed that double layers also scale up.

And, yes, double layers accelerate electrons and ions in opposite directions.

tusenfem states: "Whatever do you mean with "dynamo of electromagnetism"?

Double layers accelerate both electrons and ions.

Acceleration, constant force equalls acceleration, is the key to dynamic electromagnetic processes.

And to violate my precept slightly, Reality Check attempts to say that electromagnetism is limited to atomic distances, that's an old carnard. It is well known that the force of electromagnetism has unlimited distance, same as gravity, the only difference is the strength (39 orders of magnitude) and that electromagnetism is like a computer that works -- it has a 0 and a 1, attraction and repulsion, gravity only has attraction.

This is why electromagnetism is dynamic and gravity is static, or in other more analogous terms, gravity is "passive" and electromagnetism is "active".

Electromagetism will form into celular and filimentary structure in a multi-tiered fashion because multiple double layers at multiple scales and discontinuities can form. Gravity, on the other hand is solely dependent on mass. There is no self "organization" with gravity.

There is self-organization with electromagnetism. That is why the double layer is central to the electromagnetic theory.

 

[Anaconda]

To clarify:

Why are synchrotron radiation and double layers the two questions I'm interested in discussing?

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected in deep-space. It is a product of electrons spiralling in a magnetic current, an electron flow, if you will, ordered movement of electrons, also known as electric current. This is the most solid piece of scientific evidence that electric currents exist in space.

Double layers are the fundamental driving force of acceleration of electrons and ions. It is the engine of electromagnetism.

Detection of electric currents in deep-space.

The engine of electromagnetism.

In my mind, at least, those two items are the foundation of any productive discussion of electromagnetism in space. The rest flows from there.

 

[Tubbythin]

And to violate my precept slightly, Reality Check attempts to say that electromagnetism is limited to atomic distances, that's an old carnard.

I'm sorry, where did he say that?

It is well known that the force of electromagnetism has unlimited distance, same as gravity, the only difference is the strength (39 orders of magnitude) and that electromagnetism is like a computer that works -- it has a 0 and a 1, attraction and repulsion, gravity only has attraction.

The latter point of which is entirely responsible for making EM forces almost entirely negligible on cosmic scales.

This is why electromagnetism is dynamic and gravity is static, or in other more analogous terms, gravity is "passive" and electromagnetism is "active".

In what sense?

Electromagetism will form into celular and filimentary structure in a multi-tiered fashion because multiple double layers at multiple scales and discontinuities can form. Gravity, on the other hand is solely dependent on mass. There is no self "organization" with gravity.

There is self-organization with electromagnetism. That is why the double layer is central to the electromagnetic theory.

The electromagnetic theory of what?

 

[Ziggurat]

You guys have been discussing this for some time, and if you don't know that electromagnetism is common in the solar system -- I can't help you.

That was never the question.

If that is true, then tusenfem, your discussion has some validity in the laboratory, but again, I ask you, tusenfem, what is the limit on the size and power of double layers?

It's your model, you should be the one who knows how big and how powerful these double layers are. You should be able to put numbers on it. And you should be able to tell us where the energy to create these double layers comes from. Because electricity doesn't create double layers.

After all, with the scalability of electromagnetism established, then to contend that double layers don't also scale up

"Scale up" doesn't tell us anything. Does the thickness scale with volume? With mass? With the square root of density? How does it scale? It isn't enough to say that it "scales", because that, frankly, tells us nothing of use.

And to violate my precept slightly, Reality Check attempts to say that electromagnetism is limited to atomic distances, that's an old carnard. It is well known that the force of electromagnetism has unlimited distance, same as gravity, the only difference is the strength (39 orders of magnitude) and that electromagnetism is like a computer that works -- it has a 0 and a 1, attraction and repulsion, gravity only has attraction.

The existence of repulsion in addition to attraction is why electricity can be and is largely shielded. And it's also why electromagnetism is not, in fact, the strongest force at large length scales. In a vacuum, yes, it's 1/r², just like gravity. But what happens in a plasma? Why, it gets shielded, because plasma is a conductor. If you travel more than a few Debye lengths, any applied field will be canceled out. But not gravity: it cannot be shielded. Which is why it's far stronger than electromagnetic forces, and measurably so, at large length scales. You keep asking us to look at electromagnetic phenomena in our solar system, and yes, they exist, nobody is denying it. But you seem hell-bent on denying that all those electromagnetic forces are far weaker than the gravitational forces in our solar system. Which is why you won't actually do a comparison. You have yet to quantify anything about the "theory" you're advocating.

 

[Reality Check]

To clarify:

Why are synchrotron radiation and double layers the two questions I'm interested in discussing?

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected in deep-space. It is a product of electrons spiralling in a magnetic current, an electron flow, if you will, ordered movement of electrons, also known as electric current. This is the most solid piece of scientific evidence that electric currents exist in space

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected from galactic jets, pulsars, etc.
This is not evidence for electric currents in space.
It is evidence for the acceleration of electrons by the magnetic fields induced in the plasmas surrounding energetic objects.

Double layers are the fundamental driving force of acceleration of electrons and ions. It is the engine of electromagnetism.

Double layers are a minor cause of the acceleration of electrons and ions (read tusenfem's reply to you). They are definitely not the "engine of electromagnetism". My guess is that astronomers would say that magnetic fields are the engine of electromagnetism in space (mainly because they can be detected easier than electric fields).

Detection of electric currents in deep-space.

The engine of electromagnetism.

In my mind, at least, those two items are the foundation of any productive discussion of electromagnetism in space. The rest flows from there.

AFAIK, the electric currents in interstellar space as postulated by PC/EU have not been detected.

The EU electric currents that are supposed to power stars definitely do not exist because the Ulysses spacecraft has measured the solar wind ("electric current") around the Sun and it happens to be entirely outward.

But when EU gets around to actually producing a model of this we can revisit it. It may be that the EU electric current is 1 electron wide and so was just missed.

 

[Reality Check]

And to violate my precept slightly, Reality Check attempts to say that electromagnetism is limited to atomic distances, that's an old carnard. It is well known that the force of electromagnetism has unlimited distance, same as gravity, the only difference is the strength (39 orders of magnitude) and that electromagnetism is like a computer that works -- it has a 0 and a 1, attraction and repulsion, gravity only has attraction.

No I did not say that.

You need to learn some basic physics if you think that electromagnetism has a "0 and a 1". In your terms it has a "-1 and 1", i.e. attractive and repulsive forces.

The reason that gravity is dominant over electromagnetism on cosmological scales (millions or billions of light years) is because gravity is always attractive.

 

[Reality Check]

Electromagetism will form into celular and filimentary structure in a multi-tiered fashion because multiple double layers at multiple scales and discontinuities can form. Gravity, on the other hand is solely dependent on mass. There is no self "organization" with gravity.

Anaconda: Actually there is self "organization" with gravity. For example,

• Masses tend to form spherical bodies.
• Solar systems self organize.

And just using gravity the Millennium Run computer simulation produces

• Galaxies
• Galactic clusters
• Galactic super-clusters
• The observed large scale filamentary structure of the universe.

PC/EU proponents are obsessed with electromagnetism for some reason and try to scale up its properties to cosmological scales without realizing the major limit to this: The cellular and filamentary structures at small scales (< a million light years) are driven by energetic sources such as super-massive black holes. This means that these structures are limited in size (unless you know of a more energetic source than a super-massive black hole).

 

[ben m]

Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected in deep-space. It is a product of electrons spiralling in a magnetic current, an electron flow, if you will, ordered movement of electrons, also known as electric current. This is the most solid piece of scientific evidence that electric currents exist in space.

Wrong wrong wrong. Synchrotron radiation also comes from disordered movement of electrons---high-energy electrons moving in all directions through a chaotic magnetic field. There is no sense in which the moving electrons which are emitting the synchrotron radiation are the same thing as the net current that generates the magnetic field for the synchrotron---which indeed must have some degee of local coherence, and thus are generally the low energy ions and electrons.

Double layers are the fundamental driving force of acceleration of electrons and ions. It is the engine of electromagnetism.

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever---it's like saying "Santa Ana winds are the fundamental driving force of climate". Double layers are just one of the dozens of possible behaviors of a plasma---they're the engine of some things and not the engine of other things.

 

[Anaconda]

@ Reality check:

Reality Check states: "Synchrotron radiation has been widely detected from galactic jets, pulsars, etc. This is not evidence for electric currents in space.
It is evidence for the acceleration of electrons by the magnetic fields induced in the plasmas surrounding energetic objects."

Yes, it is evidence of electric currents in space. Magnetic fields are only created by ordered movement of electrons. It has not been demonstrated that simple thermal friction produces ordered electron movement that generates a magnetic field.

In fact, the failure to demonstrate thermal friction generates ordered electron movement (thermal friction generates random electron movement) has been one of the obstacles to claiming thermal friction from a so-called "accretion disk" can generate collimated jets of electons and ions in magnetic fields.

No ordered electron movement -- no magnetic current.

Remember, the ordered electron movement happens first, only then is a magnetic field generated.

Reality Check stated: "Double layers are a minor cause of the acceleration of electrons and ions (read tusenfem's reply to you). They are definitely not the "engine of electromagnetism". My guess is that astronomers would say that magnetic fields are the engine of electromagnetism in space (mainly because they can be detected easier than electric fields)."

I read tusenfem's answer and it provided no articulated limit to the size of a double layer.
Unless, tusenfem or somebody else is going to deny that electromagnetism is scalable, then it follows that double layers are not limited either.

"Double layers are a minor cause of the acceleration of electrons and ions."

No. they are a the primary source of acceleration of electrons and ions. Yes, gravity does cause acceleration of electrons and ions, but at an order of magnitude 39 times less than electromagnetism.

Reality Check: "My guess is that astronomers would say that magnetic fields are the engine of electromagnetism in space (mainly because they can be detected easier than electric fields)."

Your guess is wrong. Only astronomers that aren't aware of Maxwell's Equations would say, "magnetic fields are the engine of electromagnetism in space."

As I stated previously, above, ordered electron movement causes magnetic fields.

Reality Check stated: "AFAIK, the electric currents in interstellar space as postulated by PC/EU have not been detected."

Magnetic fields have been detected in interstellar space. Therefore, unless Maxwell's Equations have been repealed (they haven't), you cant have magnetic fields unless and untill there is ordered electron movement, electric currents, which generate magnetic fields.

Reality Check states: "The EU electric currents that are supposed to power stars definitely do not exist because the Ulysses spacecraft has measured the solar wind ("electric current") around the Sun and it happens to be entirely outward."

The 'Electric Sun' hypothesis is the most controversial corollary of electromagnetic theory, it is strictly "bonus round" material. I will add, though, only as an aside, that 'electron drift' toward the Sun has been detected.

Models do exist, Dr. Anthony Peratt has produced a computer simulation (particle in cell) of galaxy formation, with all the mathematical formula included. Hannes Alfven did some quantification of plasma physics including space physics.

But to answer your point, yes, mathematical quantification is a weakness of the Electric Universe theory, which should be distinguished from Plasma Universe theory, which has been much better quantified, but hey, all the mathematicians have crowded into so-called "big bang, black hole" theory.

Also, when folks hunker down in the "quantification" argument, it's not a good sign for them because for lack of quantification, does not mean for lack of reality.

Mathematics does not prove reality. Mathematics is only a servant of observation & measurement, not the master.

I forgot to write earlier in response to tusenfem when he stated: "However, Alfvén's child, MHD, is very useful and effective in plasma astrophysics and space physics."

Hannes Alfven invented/discovered MHD theory, but he specifically repudiated it, repeatedly and often. Why? Because his work in the plasma physics laboratory later showed it was inaccurate. Alfven had the intellectual courage to repudiate his own work when he became convinced it was wrong. How many scientists have that kind of fortitude. That the person who developed the theory, then repudiates it, should say something.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, gravity does cause acceleration of electrons and ions, but at an order of magnitude 39 times less than electromagnetism.

Your mindless repetition of a number whose proper context you reveal no understanding of is rather telling. The only way that an electron's acceleration due to electricity would be 39 orders of magnitude larger than its acceleration due to gravity from the sun would be if the sun was made up exclusively of protons. That's not the case, is it? Of course not. Therefore, your numbers are completely invalid, and you clearly have no real understanding of electromagnetism at all.

Models do exist, Dr. Anthony Peratt has produced a computer simulation (particle in cell) of galaxy formation, with all the mathematical formula included.

That's nice. Too bad it's been experimentally demonstrated to be an incorrect model of actual galactic rotation.

But to answer your point, yes, mathematical quantification is a weakness of the Electric Universe theory

I should say so. Most of its advocates can't even do freshman physics-level checks of consistency or order-of-magnitude calculations. You seem to be in that boat too.

Also, when folks hunker down in the "quantification" argument, it's not a good sign for them because for lack of quantification, does not mean for lack of reality.

Translation: "I can't do any calculations to support my ideas or make any specific predictions, but I can still wave my arms around so I'm not wrong."

 

[Anaconda]

@ ben m:

ben m states: "Wrong wrong wrong. Synchrotron radiation also comes from disordered movement of electrons---high-energy electrons moving in all directions through a chaotic magnetic field."

I've asked qualified astrophysicists this question, where is an abstract of a scientific paper that deomstrates, "Synchrotron radiation also comes from disordered movement of electrons"? This is a technical question -- I won't take your say so, with all due respect.

It is my understanding that there exists no scientific observation & measurement in the laboratory that supports your contention. Please provide citation to authority of a published scientific paper that demonstrates your contention.

ben m states: "...high-energy electrons moving in all directions through a chaotic magnetic field."

"a chaotic magnetic field"???

Please provide documentation for that assertion. I've never heard the term "chaotic magnetic field". Again, a published scientific paper that discusses the actual laboratory experiment where "chaotic magnetic fields" were generated. Theoretical conjecture (hypothetical mathematical equations) doesn't count.

 

[Ziggurat]

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever---it's like saying "Santa Ana winds are the fundamental driving force of climate". Double layers are just one of the dozens of possible behaviors of a plasma---they're the engine of some things and not the engine of other things.

Plus, of course, neutron stars (which are not plasmas) can have very large magnetic fields, and can produce strong synchrotron radiation.