Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Dancing David]

Sol88,

You should read the Dunderbolts about the Materhorn being blasted out and then dropped into place.

 

[Reality Check]

Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!

Dude:
There is the state of matter known as gas
There is the state of matter known as plasma.
The state of matter known as plasma is not the state of matter known as gas.
The state of matter known as plasma shares many of the same properties are gas (such as pressure) and the theory explaining its properties shares many of the equations that describe the properties of gas, e.g. the ideal gas law that Peratt uses.

Thus the common usage of the word "gas" to describe the properties of plasma.

I hope that you are not turning into an ignorant troll and can understand this simple distinction !
Plasma is not gas.
Plasma acts like gas.

One more time for the simple minded:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA! No one is claiming that the gas state of matter is the plasma state of matter.
Dude, PLASMA acts like a GAS and plasma properties can be described using gas laws.

 

[Sol88]

Perhaps DD you could point out which bit they are mistaken about

Thunderbolt of the gods

Plasma: The other 99.9%

Oct 31, 2005
Plasma: The other 99.9%

How do you see the Solar System? The simple view is gas giants and rocky asteroids and planets moving through nearly empty space. The sophisticated view illustrated above, shows the heliospheric current sheet, a component of the interplanetary plasma we call the Solar Wind, awash throughout the Solar System.

Over 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma, including the Sun and
all stars, and most of the space in between. So if you don't know the
basic properties of plasmas, then you might not understand the
properties of most of the universe.

Did you know...

1. Plasmas are formed by adding energy to gas, causing it to
ionize (an atom looses one or more electrons). For example, if
hydrogen ionizes, it produces equal numbers of negatively charged
electrons and positive ions (in this case, protons). Even a one percent
ionized gas may be considered to be a plasma, and have the properties
of a fully ionized plasma.

2. Plasmas are affected by electromagnetic forces 10³⁹ times
greater than the force of gravity. So strong is its influence that it
creates the ballerina's skirt shaped heliospheric current sheet (see
diagram), the largest structure in the Solar System, extending out
beyond the orbit of Pluto.

3. Plasma is not always electrically neutral. In general it is quasi-neutral,
meaning that localized regions of charge separation may occur. And
objects that comes into contact with a plasma will charge negatively,
such as dust, spacecraft and the surface of the Moon.

4. Plasma is a better conductor of electricity than copper. Its conductivity and response to electromagnetic influences distinguishes it from a gas. Indeed, metals can be classified as plasma, too, because they contain free electrons.
5. Moving plasma can self-generate electromagnetic fields.

6. Plasma can store energy in magnetic fields.

7. Plasmas form double layers between regions of different densities, temperatures or magnetic field strengths. A double layer:
(a) consists of two layers of opposite charge
(b) tends to form cellular structures with the double layer as the "cell wall." (eg. magnetosphere, photosphere, heliosphere)
(c) can form in filamentary current channels known as "Birkeland currents" (see below);
(d) can explode, as discovered in mercury rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines;
(e) can accelerate charged particles, in opposite directions up to velocities approaching the speed of light.

8. Relative movement of different plasma regions produces electric currents within them.

9. Electric current in plasma produces "pinched" filaments known as Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents form the cosmic power lines and the "wires" of cosmic circuits. An example is found in the ionosphere where these filaments carry up to a million amps, and power the aurora. Those in the Sun's prominences have been estimated to carry up to 100 billion amps (10¹¹ A).

10. Birkeland currents collimate "jets" of matter and charged particles. Astronomical "jets" were so named by astrophysicists because they look somewhat like fluid jets produced in the laboratory. Yet astronomical jets look nothing like a supersonic jet coming out of a nozzle, with all the attendant fluid instabilities. Heated gas should quickly disperse in space but the magnetic pinch of a Birkeland current can maintain filaments of glowing matter over thousands of light years.

11. Synchrotron radiation from pinched current filaments can be in the form of x-rays and gamma rays.

12. The pinch effect can be used in nuclear fusion reactors.

13. Plasma phenomena scale in size over at least 14 orders of magnitude. So the same phenomena may be seen in a dense laboratory plasma and a tenuous space plasma.

14. Parallel plasma filaments attract one another with a force inversely proportional to their distance apart. Compare this with gravity, which attracts matter with a force inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance. That makes pinched Birkeland currents by far the most effective way of condensing rarefied dust and gas to form molecular clouds and stars.

So since the Universe is 99.9% plasma, the important question is not IF the properties of plasma are important in cosmology, but HOW come we focus on the puny force of gravity?
...............................

"The space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and of course modern plasma physics." Hannes Alfvén, Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986

so which of those 14 points is incorrect?

 

[Sol88]

Dude:
There is the state of matter known as gas
There is the state of matter known as plasma.
The state of matter known as plasma is not the state of matter known as gas.
The state of matter known as plasma shares many of the same properties are gas (such as pressure) and the theory explaining its properties shares many of the equations that describe the properties of gas, e.g. the ideal gas law that Peratt uses.

Thus the common usage of the word "gas" to describe the properties of plasma.

I hope that you are not turning into an ignorant troll and can understand this simple distinction !
Plasma is not gas.
Plasma acts like gas.

One more time for the simple minded:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA! No one is claiming that the gas state of matter is the plasma state of matter.
Dude, PLASMA acts like a GAS and plasma properties can be described using gas laws.

Cool so we are sweet then, PLASMA is NOT a GAS Farkn finally!

 

[Reality Check]

Sorrry Tusenfem, more thunderpants for the dogs crap!
...snip Sol88 obsession with the Dunderbolts dogs crap!...
Do we fully understand astrophysical double layers?

The answer is easy: Science by definition never fully understands anything and so the answer is no.

We do know a lot about astrophysical double layers such as they are unstable without an external source of energy to maintain the charge separation, e.g. the solar wind from a star.
Also:

Double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.

And of course (the "EM effect" is now double layers):
One more time for the especially dumb:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.

 

[Sol88]

@ RC, i wrote

perhaps you could fill the lurkers here , Tusenfem, on what happens when my flow of plasma "runs" into another plasma of a different temperature? after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures and densities and they move relative to each other as well as "run" into each other

Care to have a crack at that very simple problem using just GAS laws?

 

[Sol88]

The answer is easy: Science by definition never fully understands anything and so the answer is no.

We do know a lot about astrophysical double layers such as they are unstable without an external source of energy to maintain the charge separation, e.g. the solar wind from a star.
Also:


And of course (the "EM effect" is now double layers):
One more time for the especially dumb:

1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.

But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.

Are you talking about the width of a double layer or the surface area of a double layer, RC?

 

[Reality Check]

@ RC, i wrote
Care to have a crack at that very simple problem using just GAS laws?

You cannot use GAS laws. You can use some gas laws though since many of the proporties of a PLASMA are those of a gas. See Perrat's use of the ideal gas law.
Actually you can get current-free double layers or shockwaves or nothing at all.

ETA:

after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures

is slightly wrong. They tend to be of similar temperatures over large volumes (see Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe). But if you have an energy source such as a super massive black hole large temerature differences are possible.

 

[Reality Check]

Are you talking about the width of a double layer or the surface area of a double layer, RC?

Width

 

[tusenfem]

yeah now I'm gunna get real crazy, are you stating you need electricity to form a double layer?

'Cos the god of PC once said

What kind of voltage drop do you calculate for a double radio source?

or are they not double layers, Tusenfem?

perhaps you could fill the lurkers here , Tusenfem, on what happens when my flow of plasma "runs" into another plasma of a different temperature? after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures and densities!

double radio sources are not double layers, just the fact that they both have the word "double" in them does not mean they are the same.

Noticed tho that you fail to address any of my points, and just come up with another useless quote from some PC webshite.

Why don't you tell us first how you describe your plasma flow, before you come up with other questions? Show us first that you understand the basics of your starting point, then we might discuss further. Read some real plasma physics books (e.g. Peratt if you have not thrown it away already, because Tony used the perfect gas law for a plasma).

Hot Gas vs. Electric Currents

This does not even make sense, this sounds like one of the election signs here in Austria from the stupid right wing party.

Alfvén said: "The cosmical plasma physics of today . . .is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."

Well, cleary that cannot have any link to me, having worked at Alfvén's laboratory with plasmas, so I do not feel addressed by this quote.

Do we fully understand astrophysical double layers?

yes, read my PhD thesis.
For the rest, in all of the quotes there was no mention of DLs so I do not know why the quotes or the question is relevant.

Question: Do you, Sol88 know even the basics of plasma physics, or let me make it a bit easier, the basics of MHD?

 

[tusenfem]

Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!

Forgot to mention here that you are totally right!
Gas is not necessarily a plasma
Plasma however is a gas

It is like
Apple is a fruit
A fruits is not necessarily an apple

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps DD you could point out which bit they are mistaken about
Thunderbolt of the gods

Plasma: The other 99.9%

so which of those 14 points is incorrect?

I can answer that:
Firstly the Dunderbolts book advertisement web site is wrong about about the Matterhorn being blasted out and then dropped into place.

The 14 points on their web page are almost correct standard plasma physics on mostly stellar scales.
Point 2 is wrong when it states "Plasmas are affected by electromagnetic forces 1039 times greater than the force of gravity.". It is the neighboruring ions in plasma where EM forces dominate garvity. As soon as you consider plasma on larger scales the EM effects start to balcimand out. Read their point 3.

The woo starts with
"So since the Universe is 99.9% plasma, the important question is not IF the properties of plasma are important in cosmology, but HOW come we focus on the puny force of gravity?"


This is a lie.

1. Only 3.99% of the Universe is plasma.
2. Only 20% of the matter in the universe is plasma.
3. By their weird logic 100% of the matter in the universe has mass and therefore HOW come we focus on the puny force of EM?

The proper answer is the one that all competent scientists know - EM forces dominate at small scales in plasma. Quasi-neutrality means that on cosmological scales EM forces in plasma are dominated by gravity.

 

[tusenfem]

so which of those 14 points is incorrect?

Lemme see, what this thundercrap is saying.

1. is okay, though crappy should talk about what the properties of a plasma are, it is not complete as it stands

2. is totally misleading, yes the EM force between two electrons is so much stronger than the gravitational force, however, because of the properties of a plasma (not mentioned in 1) there is shielding of charge and thus depending on the situation the (quasi)neutral plasma is more influenced by gravity than EM forces. A typical case of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"

3. is also misleading, as there is no mention on the size of the charge separation in a normal plasma, namely the DeBye length (one of the properties that should have been mentioned in 1, but crappy probably does not know about this, or disregards this because otherwise his misguided ideas will not work)

4. This is highly dependent on the properties of the plasma, whether or not it is more conductive than copper, again misleading

5. I will concur this point

6. misleading again, first of all there must be some driver creating magnetic fields and then there can be processes in which energy is stored in magnetic fields

7. I do not think that "different magnetic field strength" is a way of producing a double layer, the magnetosphere, photosphere and heliosphere are NOT double layers, and they do not explode (no matter what crappy writes)

8. this is a non-item

9. too simplistic, Birkeland currents are field aligned currents, and there is no need to pinch them

10. utter nonsense

11. a non-item, probably found on the web on a page written by Iantresman, and this is not a characteristic of a plasma

12. a non-item, just an application is not a characteristic of a plasma

13. a non-item, naturally there are things in plasmas that scale, however, not in the way that EU proponents would like them to

14. misleading once more, only if there is a NET CURRENT flowing in a plasma filament will two of those filaments attract eachother (or repulse depending on the direction of the currents). The attraction between two currents, should be kept apart from pinching because in a pinch there is only ONE current, misleading the audience again

So, let's see there was only 1 point where I concurred, there were several non-items and lots of misleading descriptions.

If Peratt would read this he would turn in his grave, coz it would most definitely kill him, this much misleading, or maybe not, when I think about his research. Definitely Alfvén turns in his grave, glad he did not have to live to see this.

 

[tusenfem]

Cool so we are sweet then, PLASMA is NOT a GAS Farkn finally!

Sorry to spoil your celebration, PLASMA IS A GAS

 

[tusenfem]

Are you talking about the width of a double layer or the surface area of a double layer, RC?

as the DeBye length is a length, how on Earth can it be the surface area?

 

[tusenfem]

Width

And that would be the width as in the distance between the negatively charged sheet and the positively charged sheet, just so you don't get confused, solly

 

[Sol88]

double radio sources are not double layers, just the fact that they both have the word "double" in them does not mean they are the same.

Noticed tho that you fail to address any of my points, and just come up with another useless quote from some PC webshite.

Why don't you tell us first how you describe your plasma flow, before you come up with other questions? Show us first that you understand the basics of your starting point, then we might discuss further. Read some real plasma physics books (e.g. Peratt if you have not thrown it away already, because Tony used the perfect gas law for a plasma).



This does not even make sense, this sounds like one of the election signs here in Austria from the stupid right wing party.



Well, cleary that cannot have any link to me, having worked at Alfvén's laboratory with plasmas, so I do not feel addressed by this quote.



yes, read my PhD thesis.
For the rest, in all of the quotes there was no mention of DLs so I do not know why the quotes or the question is relevant.

Question: Do you, Sol88 know even the basics of plasma physics, or let me make it a bit easier, the basics of MHD?

Double radio lobes attached to DRAGNs

In more powerful (Type II) sources, it appears that the jets remain at least mildly relativistic (and supersonic) out to great distances from their host galaxies, to form the 'claasical" double-lobed structures like that shown above for 3C405 (Cygnus A). In the Type II sources the ends of the jets move outwards more slowly than material flows along the jet. The plasma arriving at the end of their jets is then deflected back around them to form the lobes, large "bubbles" in the medium surrounding the galaxy.

Large "bubbles"? or double layers?

 

[Reality Check]

Double radio lobes attached to DRAGNs
Large "bubbles"? or double layers?

Read the article - bubbles.

 

[Sol88]

And that would be the width as in the distance between the negatively charged sheet and the positively charged sheet, just so you don't get confused, solly

Cool, what about surface area of the double layer? Lets take the Earths puny little DL how many m² would that cover? or better still lets take the heliosphere how many m² does that cover?

What happens to all those electron and ions arriving from outside the sun's DL as well as the + & - from inside the DL?

Can GAS do any of these things, tusenfem?

 

[Reality Check]

Cool so we are sweet then, PLASMA is NOT a GAS Farkn finally!

Yes we are clear: PLASMA (the state of matter) is NOT a GAS (the state of matter) as any idiot knows Farkn finally!

But plasma is a gas (i.e. a an ionized gas that has specific properties including properties of a gas such as pressure that can be decribed by gas laws). This is also something that any idiot knows Farkn finally!