Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[brantc]

The PC/EU/? mistake tends to be:

a) Assuming that the "currents" imply a "current source", or that these current source has some sort of wall-plug-like property of "powering" the things it is plugged into.
b) Assuming that every ropy structure is a "current flow"
c) Assuming that every mass flow is an electric current
d) Assuming that astrophysicists make some unspecified mistake by treating B as the dynamical variable and J as the dependent rather than vice-versa.

And currents do imply a current source whether it be local or distant.

In the experiment we are discussing the laser photons impart kinetic energy to the carbon to create ions and electrons.
The electrons take this kinetic energy and form flux tubes following the right hand rule.
The electrons are trying to get to an area of less concentration, current flow(discharge). The electrons will generally have a higher speed(43 times?) than the ions so they will form the channels first with the ions following.

Generally speaking ropey structures form in laboratory plasma because they carry current. Why speculate on something different than observed??

If the mass flow generates a magnetic field can we assume its not neutral?
Is any mass flow perfectly quasi-neutral? An electric current is really just kinetic energy of electrons. A mass flow has kinetic energy.

B is dependent on J.
Unless you start with a bar magnet(static) that you move around, then the only thing that will generate a dynamic B magnetic field is a dynamic J current flow.
Even in the geodynamo model you have flows of electrons generating the magnetic field. The seed field is either a bar magnet or a current.

 

[ben m]

Generally speaking ropey structures form in laboratory plasma because they carry current. Why speculate on something different than observed??

Not "generally speaking". Ropey structures form for all sorts of reasons---thermal reasons, nonlinear interaction of currents, charged particles stuck to a magnetic field line, etc.

Is any mass flow perfectly quasi-neutral?

Most of them.

An electric current is really just kinetic energy of electrons. A mass flow has kinetic energy.

No, that's entirely wrong, and wrong in the "standard" PC/EU not-quite-understanding-electricity way. Electric current is the motion of charge; it has nothing to do with whether or not that charge carries any kinetic energy. In familiar conductors (e.g., metals on Earth) the kinetic energy associated with the electrons is as close to zero as you care to imagine.

Under circumstances where you associate "energy" with a current, assuming you are doing it correctly (which I am unwilling to assume), the energy is carried entirely in magnetic fields.

Unless you start with a bar magnet(static) that you move around, then the only thing that will generate a dynamic B magnetic field is a dynamic J current flow.

Yes, like I said. How is that different than mainstream space plasma physics?

 

[brantc]

Not "generally speaking". Ropey structures form for all sorts of reasons---thermal reasons, nonlinear interaction of currents, charged particles stuck to a magnetic field line, etc.

What you mean to say is "charged particles stuck in a magnetic field gradient." Remember, there are no field lines.
The energy of the particle determines where it will gyro radius in the gradient of the magnetic field in a plasma.
Which is part of the mechanism for reconnection.

Ok. show me flux tubes(ropey structures) forming in a plasma for other reasons. Not Raleigh-Taylor instabilities.

No, that's entirely wrong, and wrong in the "standard" PC/EU not-quite-understanding-electricity way. Electric current is the motion of charge; it has nothing to do with whether or not that charge carries any kinetic energy. In familiar conductors (e.g., metals on Earth) the kinetic energy associated with the electrons is as close to zero as you care to imagine.

The higher the voltage the higher the kinetic energy(eV). Even if it only moves a infinitesimal amount, it still has kinetic energy. It passes that energy along.

Kinetic energy comes in one end and distributed on the other end.
The charge on a surface is related to the energy of the electron and causes them to "move to the surface" as well as there being an excess..

I have never seen a charge without an electron. I've heard that they exist....

Under circumstances where you associate "energy" with a current, assuming you are doing it correctly (which I am unwilling to assume), the energy is carried entirely in magnetic fields.

Source? I've heard that before but I dont think its right.

 

[ben m]

What you mean to say is "charged particles stuck in a magnetic field gradient." Remember, there are no field lines.
The energy of the particle determines where it will gyro radius in the gradient of the magnetic field in a plasma.
Which is part of the mechanism for reconnection.

You are again horribly mistaken on this. The magnetic field is a vector field, and the field direction has nothing to do with the field strength gradient. Look at the field lines in a long solenoid some time; the field strength is uniform (no gradient) but the field has a direction along the solenoid axis. The motion of a low-energy particle is a spiral which advances in the field direction and (to first approximation) doesn't give a hoot about field gradients.

This is not fancy modern physics. This is "second semester college premed" and everything on up. Seriously, I use these equations every day. I use the field-line version I just described, I use the second-order correction for the gradients, I use a Runge-Kutta Lorentz force law solver. You are really quite bluntly as wrong as you could possibly be.

Source? I've heard that before but I dont think its right.

Given the level of E&M knowledge suggested by your field line beliefs, you should hesitate a real long time before assuming that everyone else is wrong.

The source is any intro physics textbook you can possibly imagine. You will find an explanation (under "conductors") of how slowly charges move in metals---if the author doesn't explicitly give the kinetic energy, do it yourself or ask for help. In a chapter on magnetic fields you will find a quantity called "self inductance" and a quantity called "magnetic energy density" which allow you to calculate the energy associated with currents. The magnetic energy and the self-inductance energy are the same thing. Neither have a darn thing to do with kinetic energy.

 

[brantc]

Thanks for responding, brantc.
We seem to have a breakdown in communication ... to me, your "description" was not a "hypothesis".

Would you be so kind as to say a few words on what you think a hypothesis is, in physics? Perhaps you could illustrate your understanding by showing the correspondence between the key features of "hypothesis" and your description.

A hypotheses actually could be anything not testable in a terrestrial laboratory.

I could frame my idea as a testable hypotheses.

However I dont think I have introduced anything new.

OK, but how would you - assuming you had the power - decide to allocate resources across the many (dozen? hundred? thousand??) alternatives (plasma cosmology is certainly not the only alternative!)?

And if you feel the decision should not be in the hands of just one person, how should resource allocation decisions be made?

Make everyone sit in the same room and come up with an experiment that benefits everyone.

Stop spending money on war and more on science. I think 5 or 10 billion out of the 500 billion war budget would cover everyone and all their projects. Conserve resources a little better. There is enough money to cover everybody.

Fair enough ... but how should "their observations" be evaluated?

Specifically, how would you go about deciding which are scientific and which are not?

Evaluated implies that they need to fit with some paradigm. This is not so!!!!!
Pure science comes up with a result that may not fit because we are not privy to ultimate knowledge.
Fitting results into a model is not the realm of science IMO. That would be philosophy I believe, which I think is part of the problem with idea of a PHd being true science.

Everybody should have access to the same RAW data. Not this massaged, been processed, our interpretation artist sketch.

With access to the raw data I think it will be apparent which way to go.
Everything is scientific as long as the method is followed. Right?
If 2 different teams have slightly different methodologies or algorithms then you will have different results. Publish both!!!!

Time will tell.......for sure!!!!

How do you tell which is right upfront? I dont know. I'm not privy to that information.

Imagine you are the editor of a journal which aims to publish just such papers ... how do you go about deciding whether a particular submission is "basically a good paper" (or not)?

The first thing is not journal but journals. Why is there only one Nature????

<conspiracy>How else do you control the flow of information. The thing to notice is not whats there but what is missing. And how do you prove anything on whats missing? Look at media info carefully and you will see what I mean.</conspiracy>

I would probably start with a wiki type arrangement where the papers are submitted to a real peer review, by Johnny and Sally America.

Once their paper has a passed a certain standard of corrections and form, then it makes it to the first publication. This is first come first serve.
With enough journals(3 tiers) there is a place for everyone.

As far as the top publications go, rigorous science is rigorous science even if your conclusions don't agree..
There definitely should be an allowance for a track record but that doesn't entitle you to do bad science..

There will be more experienced(experts in every field) people reviewing the more complex stuff. People can learn in the process and move up. This also allows checking for conflict of interest. If people could be civil I would allow direct access to the reviewer.

Along with that I think we should change the education system so that people can make better decisions.. But thats a different story.

In terms of cosmology - studying the universe on the grandest of scales - how do you go about determining whether what you see is a magnetic field or not? And, having decided it is, how to go about characterising it (strength, direction, etc)?

Once you've characterised a magnetic field that you see, how do you go about determining what the corresponding electric currents are?

From what you know, what are the most extensive magnetic fields which have been seen (by astronomers)?

With observational astronomy I think that you have 2 basic photon lab methods available. The Zeeman effect and the Faraday effect.
The third method is using the right hand rule and applying it to plasma, with the tubular instability being a current carrying structure surrounded by a magnetic field.
Once you know the magnetic field you can work back to the current flow in the plasma.

"Pervasive throughout the known universe" is the quote I like.
I imagine as long as there is a plasma around there is probably a magnetic field from the movement of the charged particles..

How should a serious scientist go about modifying (the effects of) gravity a little, in terms of doing cosmology?

That is a tough one. We have had discussions on gravity. We even came up with a test for push gravity. For right now I am using the "models" below.

This is the model of interest right now.
Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm
Specifically.
http://davidpratt.info/aethergrav.htm#g3

I believe that this site shows the Aetherometry gravity model to be at least plausible.

TWO-STAGE MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR - PENDULUM-LEVER SYSTEM
- A Mechanical Amplifier of Clean Energy -
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/

Do you have any idea when your own ideas might be ready to be shared (not necessarily published)?

Dont know. Maybe I will get brave someday soon.

Here is a little taster. See if you can figure out what I would use this for.

From a paper entitled Mysteries of the Arc Cathode Spot: A Retrospective Glance
D. Plasma Expansion and Ion Acceleration

A further astonishing fact of arc spots is the high kinetic energy of ions leaving the cathodic plasma cloud toward the walls and the anode [21], [22] (i.e., in a direction seemingly opposite to the general electric field in gas discharges; the ion part of the arc current is negative).
A simple theory discloses an explanation [23], [24] that may be considered as sufficiently convincing: The ions are accelerated by three forces: 1) the pressure gradient within the cathodic plasma; 2) the electron-ion friction; and 3) the electric field, which has the opposite direction in the plasma expansion zone, forming a potential hump near the cathode spot.
Electrons are accelerated by the dominating pressure gradient also, but are slowed down by friction and the electric field. Thus, the electrical resistance of the expanding plasma is negative, doubtless a further strange property of arc spots. However, at high currents and in gas environments where a kind of constricted dense plasma column develops, this curiosity disappears, the field retains its normal direction. The generation of multiple charged ions in the dense cathodic plasma by thermal and pressure ionization (under nonideal conditions, e.g., in explosions) and freezing of this composition during plasma expansion was investigated, particularly by Brown, Anders, and others (for instance, [25]).

Stone Temple Pilots - Interstate Love Song. Great song.

 

[brantc]

You are again horribly mistaken on this. The magnetic field is a vector field, and the field direction has nothing to do with the field strength gradient. Look at the field lines in a long solenoid some time; the field strength is uniform (no gradient) but the field has a direction along the solenoid axis. The motion of a low-energy particle is a spiral which advances in the field direction and (to first approximation) doesn't give a hoot about field gradients.

This is not fancy modern physics. This is "second semester college premed" and everything on up. Seriously, I use these equations every day. I use the field-line version I just described, I use the second-order correction for the gradients, I use a Runge-Kutta Lorentz force law solver. You are really quite bluntly as wrong as you could possibly be.

I have drawn a little diagram.

http://www.box.net/shared/jzappu4k4v

A is the wire(flux tube) carrying current.
B to C is the gradient in strength of the magnetic field falling off as inverse square.
D is the pace in the gradient where the forces balance. Magnetic and election energy.
E is where the electron orbits
F is the path of the electron as it orbits

There are no field lines. The electrons placement D is due to the kinetic energy(voltage, drift current or potential across the wire) of the electron against the magnetic field gradient.

The electrons path F is the result of the strength of the magnetic field and the energy of the electron.

The electron may choose anywhere along D to orbit. If you increase the strength of the current, D will move outward increasing the size of the gyro-radius.

Field lines are a convenient way to mathematically describe the orbit of the electron under various conditions. They do not exist.

The electron orbits and then you describe that orbit with field lines.
Field lines are a pedagogical place holder for what is a continuous function.

Given the level of E&M knowledge suggested by your field line beliefs, you should hesitate a real long time before assuming that everyone else is wrong.

The source is any intro physics textbook you can possibly imagine. You will find an explanation (under "conductors") of how slowly charges move in metals---if the author doesn't explicitly give the kinetic energy, do it yourself or ask for help.

Remember those metal ball that hang from a frame?,and you would lift the end ball and let it drop. The ones in the middle would hardly move but the end one would fly out??

In a chapter on magnetic fields you will find a quantity called "self inductance" and a quantity called "magnetic energy density" which allow you to calculate the energy associated with currents. The magnetic energy and the self-inductance energy are the same thing. Neither have a darn thing to do with kinetic energy.

The magnetic energy in the magnetic field is a direct result of the kinetic energy of the electrons. Electrons move, magnetic field results. When that magnetic field collapses (current off) you get energy out in the form of electricity. But the magnetic field wont exist on its own.

No current, its collapsing. Current on, its building or steady state.

Again, if you think in terms of electron volts, everything is much clearer.

 

[ben m]

I have drawn a little diagram.

http://www.box.net/shared/jzappu4k4v

A is the wire(flux tube) carrying current.
B to C is the gradient in strength of the magnetic field falling off as inverse square.
D is the pace in the gradient where the forces balance. Magnetic and election energy.
E is where the electron orbits
F is the path of the electron as it orbits

Sorry, Brantc. This is entirely wrong; that's not how magnetic fields work, that's not how electrons interact with them. I recommend that you read a basic undergraduate intro text on electromagnetic fields and try to learn how these things work.

(ETA: Remember: when you read a textbook, you should NOT be asking yourself 'how can I get this book to support my way of thinking?'. You should be asking yourself 'how does electromagnetism work?'.)

 

[Reality Check]

I have drawn a little diagram.

http://www.box.net/shared/jzappu4k4v

A is the wire(flux tube) carrying current.
B to C is the gradient in strength of the magnetic field falling off as inverse square.
D is the pace in the gradient where the forces balance. Magnetic and election energy.
E is where the electron orbits
F is the path of the electron as it orbits

I agree with ben m.
You seem to have forgotten some basic electromagnetism.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Eureka! I may have made a breakthrough. Enough of a breakthrough that it's worth dipping back into this thread for one post after which it all goes straight back on ignore.

After a bit of reading, I have a GUESS at what MM has meant (or what Alfven presumably meant that MM is now incanting) by "circuit energy". The term "circuit energy" seems to be used (very rarely in physics, perhaps more commonly in EE?) to refer to the sum of the self-inductances and all pairs of mutual-inductances of electric currents in an array of circuits. For physicists, it's the energy in section 5.17 of Jackson. It allows you to calculate the energy if you know the currents in a set of circuits, and the inductances of and between all circuits (!) but don't want to calculate the magnetic field explicitly (!?!).

And Jackson section 5.17 is devoted to proving that this inductive energy is exactly the same as the energy you found (in section 5.16) by integrating 1/(2mu0) B^2 over space.

So: it's rather silly that MM has been promoting "circuit energy" as the a matter of central importance to plasma physics, then crying foul/error/balk when anyone invokes "energy stored in a B field". Dude, it's the same thing. And---under what circumstances do you know any mutual inductances without having calculated the fields already? Certainly not the circumstances in a solar flare where the geometry is changing.

In turn, of course, the rest of us have been pooh-poohing "circuit energy". I had a guess earlier that perhaps this is what it meant, but I rejected that guess because MM's invokations always contradicted this meaning---you always connected it to electric fields, which are completely irrelevant. I asked him directly to define it and he ignored it. But yeah, no, it turns out that "circuit energy" is not small---rather, it is what the rest of us have been talking about the whole time. It's a weird name for 1/(2mu)B^2.

It's not at all a standard term in physics, which is why no one has heard of it. Google turns it up in EE, but search for "circuit energy" +plasma and what comes up? After some mishits, it's: Alfven's book, then some 1972 paper, then MM himself on this forum. No wonder no one can understand him. Anyway, now that I understand him (if indeed I do) I can speak more clearly: MM, this circuit energy thing is exactly the same problem as the problem tusenfem has described repeatedly. If you state the magnetic field distribution---which is what solar flare modelers do---then you instantly know both the energy of this configuration (integrate B^2) and the current density that makes it (curl B). If you state the current density instead, there's a hideous, labor-intensive calculation that gives you the B fields (Biot-Savart) and an even more hideous calculation that gives you the "circuit energy" as a sum of 1/2 LI^2 terms, and even that requires an extra discretization. That's why modern physicists---the ones who need to work with actual numbers---invariably do the former and have done for decades.

Every time you state that the B-field-version is "wrong", you're stating that the circuit energy version is wrong. They're the same thing. Every time you state that B fields don't store and release energy, you're saying the same thing about "circuit energy" (assuming my definition) because they're the same thing.

All clear now? OK, bye.

Actually that was one of your more useful posts even from my perspective. I'll probably have to chew on it awhile before I comment further, but we seem to be getting somewhere.

FYI, I've not tried to claim the B orientation was "wrong", I said the E orientation was equally valid and equally important. I also pointed out that the transfer of the energy that is stored in the magnetic field into kinetic energy of a charged particle is called "induction", not magnetic reconnection. What you're calling a "magnetic line" is actually a "current carrying plasma filament" called a "magnetic rope', the same thing that Alfven drew as part of a "circuit".

FYI, I've left this thread alone for awhile now, yet it doesn't look like any of you EU/PC critics have meaningfully embraced or commented much on any of those papers I provided. Are you speechless or what? There is ample evidence of Alfven's "circuits" in what you're calling a "magnetic line". The only thing "reconnecting" are the "circuits", not the magnetic lines. What you're calling a "magnetic reconnection" process is simply a "circuit reconnection" process between two "magnetic ropes". It's essentially a short circuit in plasma and simple induction.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The magnetic energy in the magnetic field is a direct result of the kinetic energy of the electrons.

FYI, that's evidently the part they don't understand.

Electrons move, magnetic field results. When that magnetic field collapses (current off) you get energy out in the form of electricity. But the magnetic field wont exist on its own.

No current, its collapsing. Current on, its building or steady state.

Again, if you think in terms of electron volts, everything is much clearer.

Of course it's clearer which is why Alfven switched to what he called a "particle" viewpoint (and E field orientation) when talking about current carrying plasmas. They simply don't want to admit it can be looked at from the particle kinetic energy viewpoint with equal validity and that is why their 'magnetic reconnection" turns out to be nothing more than "circuit reconnection" between two short circuiting "magnetic ropes".

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, I've left this thread alone for awhile now, yet it doesn't look like any of you EU/PC critics have meaningfully embraced or commented much on any of those papers I provided. Are you speechless or what? There is ample evidence of Alfven's "circuits" in what you're calling a "magnetic line". The only thing "reconnecting" are the "circuits", not the magnetic lines. What you're calling a "magnetic reconnection" process is simply a "circuit reconnection" process between two "magnetic ropes". It's essentially a short circuit in plasma and simple induction.

FYI:
The papers have been commented on extensively by me in this thread.


The papers are about the electrical fields and currents that are produced by solar flares from coronal loops (magnetic fields).

• Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
  This is an model about large scale electric fields in the flares produced by coronal loops. See Fig 2 for the loop (FYI: all the B's are magnetic fields!) and flare.
  This is the only paper of the four that cites Alfven.
  
  The model is that photospheric plasma motion could lead to the generation of an electric current. That current can follow the magnetic field lines. And then as on page 5:
  "If there is a magnetic connection between two oppositely charged areas through the corona, possibly as a result of magnetic reconnection, an electric current can close the electric circuit (Alfven and Carlqvist 1967, Heyvaerts 1974) through the corona (Fig 2). Then an electric field occurs along the coronal magnetic fields and acts on the electrons within the coronal loop, and accelerates them along the magnetic field up to high energies beyond 100 keV."
  
• Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare
  This is a twisted magmnetic rope model for these 2 specific solar flares. It bascially states that solar flares vary (big surprise!), the standard magnetic reconnection model explains most of them but there are some flares that fit their magnetic reconnection between twisted magnetic flux rope model. See section 3.3 (page 16) of the paper "Flare, Ejecta, and a Cusp-like Feature".
  
• Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops
  This paper is about a model for the acceleration of electrons in solar flares. FYI: It says nothing about the coronal loops and nothing about causes the acceleration.
  

  Results: The standard thin-thick target solar flare model cannot explain the observations of all events. In the events presented here, propagation effects in the form of non-collisional energy loss are of importance to explain the observations. We demonstrate that those energy losses can be interpreted in terms of an electric field in the flare loop. One event seems consistent with particle propagation or acceleration in lower than average density in the coronal source.
  Conclusions: We find observational evidence for an electric field in flare loops caused by return currents.

  And on page 4:
  

  In the above analysis, we assumed that the electrons experienced a constant energy loss while streaming down the loop. We now demonstrate that this energy loss could be caused by an electric potential in the loop that drives a return current.

  
  
• A fresh look on the heating mechanisms of the Solar corona
  This is a letter rather than the full paper that was published but the abstract and text is clear. It is about modeling the acceleration of electrons by electric fields to explain the coronal heating problem. It is nothing to do with electrical discharges. It is standard solar physics.

 

[ben m]

I also pointed out that the transfer of the energy that is stored in the magnetic field into kinetic energy of a charged particle is called "induction", not magnetic reconnection.

You make it sound like a difference in semantics. Nobody ever said "the transfer of B to KE is reconnection"; that's what you keep saying. We said that the crossing and reconnection of field lines is reconnection. It so happens (and this is not trivial or obvious at all) that the reconnection-configuration is one that leads to a rapid runaway of this reconfiguration; that sort of runaway is otherwise rare. When you zoom in, sure, it's probably mostly induction---so what?

What you're calling a "magnetic line" is actually a "current carrying plasma filament"

No, what I am calling a magnetic line is a magnetic field line; a streamline of the magnetic vector field. It is possible for these lines to carry (or coincide with, if you prefer) a net electric current. It is possible for them to carry zero net electric current. It is possible for them to carry a net mass flow; it is possible for them to carry zero mass flow. "reconnection" does not mean the reconnection of electric currents, it means the reconnection of magnetic field lines. Like I've been saying over and over, every time you bring it up.

When I mean electric current I call it current, or use [latex]I[/latex] or [latex]\vec{j}[/latex]. When I mean field I say so or use [latex]\vec{B}[/latex].

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ben, you put forward a rather compelling case for reconnection (whatever the hell that physically is) but it would probably be better suited to this thread all about mag reconnection, with some (as of yet) unanswered questions in the OP and general info about it for all to read.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120782
Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

 

[brantc]

I agree with ben m.
You seem to have forgotten some basic electromagnetism.

You guys are right.

I got confused between a wire and a flux tubes. A wire has no gyroradius!
I dont know what I was thinking.
I had a cold from sunday to thursday.

 

[Tim Thompson]

On magnetic reconnection, see my new post in the magnetic reconnection thread.

 

[Reality Check]

"Circuit energy" is not a proxy for magnetic energy. It is the source of magnetic energy.

Can you cite the definition of "circuit energy" that you are using from a textbook or published paper (i.e. what you have as "the source of magnetic energy" but hopefully with actual mathematics)?

If you read ben m's post then you will see that the term is defined in at least one textbook as equivalent to the energy stored in a magnetic field.

Please rely in the magnetic reconnection thread.

 

[Tim Thompson]

E-field or B-field?

See my earlier post Magnetic Reconnection Redux V from December 30:

"This is the basic equation of magnetic behavior in MHD, and it determines B once v is known. In the electromagnetic theory of fixed conductors, the electric field and electric current are primary variables with the current driven by electric fields. in such a fixed system the magnetic field is a secondary variable derived from the currents. However, in MHD the basic physics is quite different, since the plasma velocity (v) and magnetic field (B) are the primary variables, determined by the induction equation and the equation of motion, while the resulting current density (j) and electric field (E) are secondary and may be deduced from equations (1.8) and (1.10a) if required (Parker, 1996)."
Priest & Forbes, page 14.

So it is important to realize that in the vast majority of astrophysical cases, the magnetic field is primary and the electric field is secondary, in the plasma. With that in mind, one must understand that while circuit models are still used in plasma physics, their interpretation & application must be handled with care. After all, circuit models naturally assume that the electric field is primary, which we know is usually not the case.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Delayed response, part 1

[...]

OK, but how would you - assuming you had the power - decide to allocate resources across the many (dozen? hundred? thousand??) alternatives (plasma cosmology is certainly not the only alternative!)?

And if you feel the decision should not be in the hands of just one person, how should resource allocation decisions be made?

Make everyone sit in the same room and come up with an experiment that benefits everyone.

In astronomy, that's surprisingly easy to do ... the 'experiments' are called surveys (and lots of resources goes into designing and conducting them, and into making sure the results are available, ASAP, for free, to everyone).

Stop spending money on war and more on science. I think 5 or 10 billion out of the 500 billion war budget would cover everyone and all their projects. Conserve resources a little better. There is enough money to cover everybody.

That only pushes the question further out ... once science became that attractive, more people would take up careers as scientists, and soon there would be a shortage of resources again.

Now as ideas are cheap - anyone can have one (or a hundred) - but testing them is not, the question of resource allocation will never go away ... and the more people you have wanting resources, the feasibility of getting everyone into a room (even a virtual room) drops, and the likelihood of getting unanimous agreement - on anything - becomes close to zero. So, the result is that there are vast resources available, but no agreement on how to allocate them!

Got a more feasible idea?

Fair enough ... but how should "their observations" be evaluated?

Specifically, how would you go about deciding which are scientific and which are not?

Evaluated implies that they need to fit with some paradigm. This is not so!!!!!
Pure science comes up with a result that may not fit because we are not privy to ultimate knowledge.
Fitting results into a model is not the realm of science IMO. That would be philosophy I believe, which I think is part of the problem with idea of a PHd being true science.

Again, I think there's a failure of communication.

Let's take your proposal ("I vote for my tax dollars to go into a plasma telescope for studying Flux Tubes"), and examine it a bit more carefully.

Aren't there paradigms embedded in this?

Whatever it is, doesn't "a plasma telescope" require a great many models in order for it work? wouldn't the designers and builders of such a device have to use many models?

Everybody should have access to the same RAW data. Not this massaged, been processed, our interpretation artist sketch.

But there's no such thing as RAW data is there (if I accept your claims about paradigms and models)?

In any case, at least in astronomy, and at least for most major projects/missions/observatories/etc, all raw data is indeed available (though not always for free, and sometimes not easily downloaded). Certainly all surveys (that I know of) make raw data available ...

With access to the raw data I think it will be apparent which way to go.
Everything is scientific as long as the method is followed. Right?
If 2 different teams have slightly different methodologies or algorithms then you will have different results. Publish both!!!!

Again, I feel that I'm missing something ... what you're describing is either pretty much what already happens (at least in astronomy), or includes some vital, radically new, aspect that you've not made explicit.

Time will tell.......for sure!!!!

How do you tell which is right upfront? I dont know. I'm not privy to that information.

No one is ... but my question was, once several bunches of folk have taken some raw data, analysed it, written it up, and published it (the vehicle - journal, conference presentation, blog on a website, ... - is irrelevant for now), how do you suggest those results be evaluated?

Specifically, from what's published, how do suggest decisions get made concerning what's scientific (and what's not)?

Perhaps an example might help.

Suppose one published result contains scads and scads of mistakes in the math (could be as gross as 1 + 1 = 999). Would these simple math errors be enough to say that this published result is not scientific?

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Delayed response, part 2

(continued)

[...]

Imagine you are the editor of a journal which aims to publish just such papers ... how do you go about deciding whether a particular submission is "basically a good paper" (or not)?

The first thing is not journal but journals. Why is there only one Nature????

Well, in astronomy (and astrophysics, and cosmology), there are already several (and Nature does not cover these fields only); for example ApJ (The Astrophysical Journal), MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society - not restricted to British authors, of course!), AJ (The Astronomical Journal), and A&A (Astronomy and Astrophysics).

<conspiracy>How else do you control the flow of information. The thing to notice is not whats there but what is missing. And how do you prove anything on whats missing? Look at media info carefully and you will see what I mean.</conspiracy>

Well, I have no truck with conspiracy theories ... after all, it's pretty easy to set up a new, online journal, and doesn't cost much to run one either ...

I would probably start with a wiki type arrangement where the papers are submitted to a real peer review, by Johnny and Sally America.

So ... what do you consider to be "real peer review"?

Once their paper has a passed a certain standard of corrections and form, then it makes it to the first publication. This is first come first serve.
With enough journals(3 tiers) there is a place for everyone.

How does this differ from what already exists?

After all, there are plenty of alternative/fringe/etc journals - peer-reviewed! - which seem to do pretty much what you describe.

There are also lots of second tier journals, not in the same league as ApJ or MNRAS, ...

Granted, you personally may not know of their existence, but ...

As far as the top publications go, rigorous science is rigorous science even if your conclusions don't agree..

What makes something "rigorous science"?

Is it something that only you can tell (when you see it)? Or are there objective, independently verifiable criteria for determining what should get a gold star (and if so, what)?

There definitely should be an allowance for a track record but that doesn't entitle you to do bad science..

There will be more experienced(experts in every field) people reviewing the more complex stuff. People can learn in the process and move up. This also allows checking for conflict of interest. If people could be civil I would allow direct access to the reviewer.

How is this different from what already happens?

Along with that I think we should change the education system so that people can make better decisions.. But thats a different story.

Sure.

(to be continued)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Delayed response, part 3

(continued)

[...]

In terms of cosmology - studying the universe on the grandest of scales - how do you go about determining whether what you see is a magnetic field or not? And, having decided it is, how to go about characterising it (strength, direction, etc)?

Once you've characterised a magnetic field that you see, how do you go about determining what the corresponding electric currents are?

From what you know, what are the most extensive magnetic fields which have been seen (by astronomers)?

With observational astronomy I think that you have 2 basic photon lab methods available. The Zeeman effect and the Faraday effect.

As far as I know, the Zeeman effect has been used to estimate the integrated magnetic field strength (no info on direction) for some stars only.

Do you know of any papers reporting estimates of the magnetic field strength, from the Zeeman effect, for objects other than stars?

Do you know of any papers reporting estimates of the magnetic field direction(s), from the Zeeman effect?

Beyond the solar system, in both cases.

Can you please outline how the Faraday effect can be used to estimate the magnetic field strength and direction, in some region of interstellar (or intergalactic) space?

The third method is using the right hand rule and applying it to plasma, with the tubular instability being a current carrying structure surrounded by a magnetic field.

Can you describe this method in more detail please?

Specifically, how can you characterise - from astronomical observations - either the magnetic field or the current sufficiently to be able to apply the right hand rule?

Once you know the magnetic field you can work back to the current flow in the plasma.

That may be so ... however, I'm not sure how you think one can characterise ("know") the magnetic field well enough, from astronomical observations, to work back (see above).

"Pervasive throughout the known universe" is the quote I like.
I imagine as long as there is a plasma around there is probably a magnetic field from the movement of the charged particles..

Indeed.

However, that does not answer my question, does it? I'm curious to know what you have found, as to the most extensive magnetic fields which have been seen (by astronomers)

How should a serious scientist go about modifying (the effects of) gravity a little, in terms of doing cosmology?

That is a tough one. We have had discussions on gravity. We even came up with a test for push gravity. For right now I am using the "models" below.

[...]

Thanks for that.

What I am interested in is not so much what alternatives there might be, or what ones you've come across; rather, I'm curious to know how you think the search for a modification should be done.

Remember, my question arose from your comment "Dont get me wrong I'm a firm believer in the effects of gravity, maybe it just needs to be modified a little."

Do you have any idea when your own ideas might be ready to be shared (not necessarily published)?

Dont know. Maybe I will get brave someday soon.

[...]

OK ... please be sure to let us know!


(concluded)