Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.

One of them should suffice.

 

[Reality Check]

So? To quote RC:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

1960-70? Astronomy has progressed a lot since then reality check. Even I dont cite PC papers from the 70's, let along 60's. I dont think this galactic wide sound theory is any more likely than my nan becoming primeminister.

Ages of theories do not matter unless they have been falsified by experiments or observations. The density wave theory is still valid.

Ages of theories do not matter, unless they have been falsified. If you know of any such refutations of PC published in any journals, then please cite them. The PC material is all there for all to see, critique and review in reputable journals. No-one seems to have found any issues with it (published in peer reviewed journals) from what I can see.

No one has found any issues with PC because it is has never been actually published.
What has been published are the many theories that are in the collection of incompatable theories that make up PC (by your definition).
Many of these papers have been refuted by observations and experiments, e.g. WMAP data, actual observation of dark matter, the Lanbda-CDM model, etc.
Some of these papers may have been addressed specifically by other published papers. However given the scientific woo-ness of PC (as shown by this thread), I do not expect many scientists would waste their time doing this.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

I am very much looking forward to you making this case, Z.

Especially as you will need to account for not only the overall Li abundance, but also for the relative abundance of 6Li and 7Li (or something equivalent), and how this has changed over time, by environment, etc.

Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.

If you do do this, and do so satisfactorily, you will earn a medal for bravery (not to mention being able to publish in ApJ pretty much whenever you want).

Mind you, I suspect that you have close to zero understanding of just how daunting a task you've set for yourself ... not least because you also have to show - quantitatively - why high-z objects are 'visible' in the wavebands where the CMB is strongest (HINT: the “cosmic fog” that gives rise to the CMB, in the PC idea, would completely obscure high-z objects, in this waveband, just as SgrA* is completely obscured in the optical waveband), account for the SZE, ...

One of them should suffice.

Indeed.

 

[Perpetual Student]

 

[Reality Check]

Long ago I asked Zeuzzz (or any other proponent of these ideas) to give me one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable. So far, the result has been a torrent of dodges, whines, and squirms, containing nothing even close to a contender. That's about the best evidence that PC/EU is not science one could attain in this thread at least, so I consider the matter long since settled.

But the challenge remains open, on one condition - that if the PC/EU explanation is shown false, Zeuzzz (or whoever proposes it) will agree to stop posting about PC/EU.

Well, when I get round to it, I'll probably choose either the abundance of lithium in old stars or the properties of the CMB. In relation to Li, plasma cosmology explains Li as the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy, and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Whereas in BB nucleosynthesis predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Up to date discoveries have clearly shown plasma cosmology right—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

You are just repeating what is well known:
BBN predictions of Li abundance are not very good (a factor of 2 off the measured values).
Cosmic ray spallation can convert heavier nuclei to Li.

What we need from you is the "specific, quantitative, and falsifiable" part of scientific theories, e.g. a link to the paper that calculates (not "explains") the Li abundance from the result of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early stages of the formation of the galaxy.

From what I understand PC predicts that the Li abundance should fall in older stars (you need stars to create cosmic rays and so create Li). And the first generation of stars will have no Li at all (I wonder how much Li the oldest white dwarf stars have?)

The problem is that your definition of PC includes an eternal universe. So we are back to the usual problems with an eternal universe - an infinite time allows processes to build up infinite output. Why is there not an infinite amount of Li?

Or I may choose Plasma cosmology's predictions that CMB anisotropies are due to inhomogeneities in the “cosmic fog”, linked to inhomogeneities in the distribution of galaxies in our local part of the universe. And numerous observations abundantly demonstrate that the CMB is indeed non-Gaussian, in contrast to inflation, which clearly predicts the CMB should be broadly isotropic and anisotropies should be Gaussian.

One of them should suffice.

Just remember the "specific, quantitative, and falsifiable" part of scientific theories when you cite the papers that calculate the PC correlation of galaxies in the local universe with CMB anisotropies and the non-Gaussian nature of the CMB anisotropies.

 

[Reality Check]

Some of which you may want to take a look at. I suggest starting from the most recent. Here they are in order by date.

Evolution of Colliding Plasmas, A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980 (248K).

Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990

Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992

The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)

Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997 [not full text, PM me if you want the full paper]

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, 1998

I'm sure if you contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space science or the IEEE and point out any issues they either publish your refutation (considering it passes peer review like all of the above) or they will retract the papers.

That is a good point:

Hey - any lurkers that are an undergraduate or post-graduate astronomy student with spare time (there must be lots of you ).
If you want easy credit or an easy paper to publish then you should follow Zeuzzz's advice. Have a look at the Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation for some ideas.

P.S. Zeuzzz - Journals rarely retract published papers, especially ones that are 20 years old, and only if they contain falsified or fraudulent content.

 

[Sol88]

I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

As if I lived in one big plasma "bubble" and there is no way it can communicate over any distance greater than the DeBye length.

Is this how you interpret my understanding of the Plasma universe we live in, RC, Tusenfem, DRD, DD et cetera?

And it seems we can finally agree on the difference between plasma and gas, and since I'm not all that interested in space "gas" we can return to our normal programing on plasma (or indeed any ionized gas) the fundamental state of matter and all it's really funky behavior.

 

[Sol88]

Reality Ckeck wrote:

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.

Can we lock this in RC? You don't want to phone a friend? Ask the audience? 50/50?

 

[Reality Check]

Reality Ckeck wrote:


Can we lock this in RC? You don't want to phone a friend? Ask the audience? 50/50?

Yes we can lock this in.

 

[Reality Check]

I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

It is not my "insistence on the Debye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale".

It is the physical fact that EM interactions in plasmas do not extend over scales bigger than tens of Debye lengths - with the possible exception of when there are external energy sources. For example super massive black holes power galactic jets that can be 100,000s of light years long and some light years wide. These are thought to be collimated by massive twisting of magnetic fields at the black hole accretion disk.
Of course galactic jets have little to do with plasma cosmology and are not even at a cosmological scale.

Debye length (emphasis added)

In plasma physics, the Debye length (also called Debye radius), named after the Dutch physicist and physical chemist Peter Debye, is the scale over which mobile charge carriers (e.g. electrons) screen out electric fields in plasmas and other conductors. In other words, the Debye length is the distance over which significant charge separation can occur.

 

[tusenfem]

So we are finally clear then? Gas and PLASMA are distinct states of matter?

And most of the time when the mainstream talk about GAS they are really talking about PLASMA, are they not? eg stellar winds, multi million degree GAS et cetera

So that is all you get out of my message?
You still do not understand plasma physics.
I would think that most times when mainstream is talking about gases they are really talking about gases.

 

[tusenfem]

So you tell me Tusenfem, what drugs do you think Alfven was on to propose such an anti scientific crackpot theory such as PLASMA COSMOLOGY?

Well Alfven was crackpot enough to lose all his money in a kind of pyramid scam.

However sad that is.

However, Alfven's ideas have nothing in common with anything in your mind. You, Sol88 do not understand plasma physics.

 

[tusenfem]

yes we get this Tusenfem, but what shape does the DL form, is it not a "bubble"?

Say an anology would be a balloon with the skin being the DeBye length (width) but the skin must close on itself yeah? or no "bubble"!

So whats the surface area of the balloon (bubble) double layer? Say of the Earths?

No you do not get it, because you do not understand plasma physics, and apparently neither normal physics and mathematics.

The idea of the skin of a balloon being a DeBye length is preposterous.

For the rest, the surface area of a double layer is totally unimportant, however, I cannot explain that to you as you do not understand plasma physics.

 

[tusenfem]

The PC material is all there for all to see, critique and review in reputable journals. No-one seems to have found any issues with it (published in peer reviewed journals) from what I can see.

[snip]

despite it being published in Journals suich as Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science for anyone to read and comment on. And yes, some published 1992, some in 1986, some in 1995, 1998 ... So what?

[snip]

I'm sure if you contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space science or the IEEE and point out any issues they either publish your refutation (considering it passes peer review like all of the above) or they will retract the papers.

Looking at the quality of the papers in IEEE and also Adv. Space Sci. one quickly finds out that the referee system is not very thorough for these two journals.

Sorry to say, most of the time you hear "oh it's for Astrophys. Space Sci. (or Planet. Space Sci.) so it is not so important." They have a very low impact factor and are usually used for publication of conference proceedings. Interesting that in the whole list there is only ONE publication in a good journal and that is from 1980 in Phys. Rev. Lett., but then these were in the time that numerical modeling just started up, and as shown later, that model for making galaxies does not comply with reality.

But I am glad you say:

Might aswell just post it now, but dont expect me to spend much time replying to your comments.

So, we can forget about all this. TaDah!

 

[tusenfem]

I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

Again, you do not understand plasma physics.
The DeBye length deals with screening off charge imbalances in plasmas and only when driven can this imbalance be pumped up to about 10 DeBye lengths like in a double layer.

This does not mean that e.g. there is no drag on the ionosphere of Jupiter, because of the plasma pick up happening around Europa.

Again, plasma physics is too difficult for you, you don't understand the finesses.

 

[Tubbythin]

Not quite. Numerous simulations, with numerous authors, taking into consideration many factors, and published in very reputable journals. Whether its right or not, is open to debate. Thats what this thread is all about. One things for sure is that there are no peer reviewed refutations or critiques of the model, despite it being published in Journals suich as Astrophysics and Space Science and the IEEE Transaction on Plasma Science for anyone to read and comment on.

How many times Zeuzzz? The lack of refutations to a non-mainstream paper does not mean nobody can refute it. It means nobody can be bothered to refute it specifically because nobody cares. Specific refutations only ever come about for models/theories people actually use.

 

[Sol88]

No you do not get it, because you do not understand plasma physics, and apparently neither normal physics and mathematics.

The idea of the skin of a balloon being a DeBye length is preposterous.

For the rest, the surface area of a double layer is totally unimportant, however, I cannot explain that to you as you do not understand plasma physics.

Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?

 

[tusenfem]

Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?

Why, isn't Alfvén's book enough? Or Peratt's?
You probably don't even have those books.

Simplest view for a DL:

a plasma column of certain diameter
a voltage drop over the axis of the plasma
a current along the axis through the plasma
at one location along the axis a region where there is charge separation
a positive layer and a negative layer separated say 10 DeBye lengths along the axis
the size of the DL perpendicular to the axis is usually as large as the current channel is

An analogy (but very loosly) is when you look at a flowing river.
Sometimes you will see in the surface waves standing structures that do not move with respect to you.
These consist of a "valley" and a "mountain", which would be analogous to a positive and negative charge layer.

This you should already know as a DL is the holy grail of EU.
So, basically, once more, you don't understand plasma physics, or physics or math.

 

[Dancing David]

I was just musing to myself this morning and thought a lot of our misunderstandings in communication wrt my interpretation of PC/EU theory, is RC insistence on the DeBye length ruling out any plasma interaction over the large scale.

As if I lived in one big plasma "bubble" and there is no way it can communicate over any distance greater than the DeBye length.

Is this how you interpret my understanding of the Plasma universe we live in, RC, Tusenfem, DRD, DD et cetera?

And it seems we can finally agree on the difference between plasma and gas, and since I'm not all that interested in space "gas" we can return to our normal programing on plasma (or indeed any ionized gas) the fundamental state of matter and all it's really funky behavior.

If you have to ask about the Debye length, really, okay, I mean that is sort of important, now isn't it?

 

[Dancing David]

Reality Ckeck wrote:


Can we lock this in RC? You don't want to phone a friend? Ask the audience? 50/50?

Now Sol88 before you get lost, stop, are you talking about 'matter' that produces EM radiation and effects EM radiation?

Do you really pay attention?


And please stop quoting Dunderbolts.