Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

[DeiRenDopa]

Peratt's model, and simulation(s), has come up in comments on a Tom Bridgman blog entry: Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models.

In this, Siggy_G made this claim:

By the way, you are aware that Peratt did include mass/gravity in his later simulations of 1995 right?

PDF: http://tinyurl.com/2a7scc7

And later Tom wrote this:

I do believe Siggy_G is correct in that Peratt had gravity included in his simulation. Try
B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma
Science, 20:891–+, December 1992.

Now the paper Siggy_G cited is totally unclear on what the simulation Peratt ran was (that formed the basis of the paper); he doesn't anywhere cite the simulation, nor provide any details in the paper itself (his reference to his 1992 book isn't helpful; AFAIK, in that book he shows how gravity could be included, but also makes it clear that he hadn't, then, done any simulations which included gravity).

I have not been able to get a copy of the Meierovich and Peratt paper Tom cites, and the abstract isn't helpful.

Does anyone have access to a copy of this paper? If so, what does it say about how "gravity" was included in Peratt's basic model?

Also, does anyone know where Peratt published actual details of the simulations he ran, that formed the basis of the paper Siggy_G cited?

 

[tusenfem]

I have discussed that meierovich paper somewhere already.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I have discussed that meierovich paper somewhere already.

Yes, you did (that's the main post on it, you mentioned/discussed it in several subsequent posts).

RC has a link to the paper, in this post ... but the link doesn't work.

These posts are certainly interesting, but they do not tell me how (if at all) gravity was included, nor do they point to just what the simulation Peratt ran was.

 

[Reality Check]

The paper that Siggy_G cites is
Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies

This contains no reference to any other simulation other than mentioning the ones done in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The conclusion is the that simulation that the paper refers to is Perratts original 1985 one.
The lack of a citation to the source of the left hand part of Figure 2 (the simulattion) further suggests the original paper.

The PDF of B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:891–+, December 1992. has vanished from the plasmascience.net site. I have attached a copy to this post.
This paper has no new simulation in it and the fact that is destroys Perratt's model has been stated in previous posts.

The list of Anthony Peratt's published papers on plasmascience.net does not include a paper containing updated simulations. But maybe Siggy_G can give us an ciration to the actual paper.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The paper that Siggy_G cites is
Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies

This contains no reference to any other simulation other than mentioning the ones done in the late 1970's and early 1980's. The conclusion is the that simulation that the paper refers to is Perratts original 1985 one.
The lack of a citation to the source of the left hand part of Figure 2 (the simulattion) further suggests the original paper.

The PDF of B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt. Equilibrium of intergalactic currents. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 20:891–+, December 1992. has vanished from the plasmascience.net site. I have attached a copy to this post.
This paper has no new simulation in it and the fact that is destroys Perratt's model has been stated in previous posts.

The list of Anthony Peratt's published papers on plasmascience.net does not include a paper containing updated simulations. But maybe Siggy_G can give us an ciration to the actual paper.

Thanks very much RC!

What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In Peratt's "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies"*, in the Introduction, Peratt says:

The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 10⁷ times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment¹.

The footnote reads: "'Neutral' hydrogen in space has a degree of ionization of the order of 10^-4."

I've also seen similar statements in other Peratt papers.

But I've never seen - that I can recall - a derivation of these numbers!

Does anyone know:
a) how Peratt arrived at these values?
b) in which publication did he make the derivations explicit?

* the paper which Siggy_G provides a link to

 

[brantc]

Thanks very much RC!

What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution.

That might be revolving as in

Rotating elephant trunks[*]

G. F. Gahm1 - P. Carlqvist2 - L. E. B. Johansson3 - S. Nikolic4,5


1 - Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Centre, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
2 - Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
3 - Onsala Space Observatory, 439 92 Onsala, Sweden
4 - Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36D, Santiago, Chile
5 - Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro

Received 8 November 2005 / Accepted 26 January 2006

Abstract
Aims. We investigate the structure and velocity of cold molecular pillars, "elephant trunks'', in expanding H II regions.
Methods. The trunks are seen in silhouette against the bright background in our H$\alpha $ images. All trunks are filamentary, and show signs of being twisted. Four such trunks in NGC 7822, IC 1805, the Rosette Nebula, and DWB 44 were selected, and then mapped mainly in 12CO and 13CO. We determine the mass and density of the trunks. Most of the mass is concentrated in a head facing the central cluster, and in sub-filaments forming the body of the trunk that is connected to V-shaped filaments to the outer expanding shell.
Results. We discovered that all four trunks rotate as rigid bodies (to a first approximation) about their major axes, and that at least two trunks are stretching along their major axes, meaning that the massive heads are lagging behind in the general expansion of the H II regions. The rotational periods are of the order of a few million years - similar to the age of the clusters. Rotation, then, is responsible for the twisted appearance of many elephant trunks, since they are rooted in the outer shells. The trunks carry surprisingly large amounts of angular momentum, $3\times 10^{48}{-}2\times 10^{50}$ kg m2 s-1, with corresponding rotational energies of up to $\sim$1037 J. However, we estimate the total magnetic energies to be even larger. The trunks continuously reshape, and the formation of twined, and in many cases helical, sub-filaments can be understood as a consequence of electromagnetic and inertia forces inside the trunks. A theory based on the concept of magnetically twisted trunks is developed further, where the initial angular momentum is a consequence of the twisting of parent filaments containing mass condensations. Our results also suggest a new process of removing angular momentum from parent molecular clouds.

Key words: ISM: H II regions - ISM: clouds - ISM: kinematics and dynamics - ISM: magnetic fields
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...e&Itemid=129&bibcode=2006A%26A...454..201GFUL

 

[Reality Check]

That might be revolving as in

Rotating elephant trunks
[*]
....

Nice bit of astronomy.
But please keep to the topic of this thread, brantc, i.e. cosmology and in particular Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.

 

[Reality Check]

The footnote reads: "'Neutral' hydrogen in space has a degree of ionization of the order of 10^-4."

I've also seen similar statements in other Peratt papers.

But I've never seen - that I can recall - a derivation of these numbers!

Anthony Peratt did not derive that value.
I believe that the figure of 10^-4 for the ionization of neutral hydrogen in "space" (actually interstellar space, e.g. H I regions) is a observational value derived from measurements (temperature and density?) of the regions.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks very much RC!

What's discussed in that Meierovich and Peratt paper is a ~350 Mpc long current in a fully ionised plasma, "evolving with a velocity of around 1000 km/s" (whatever that means). There is, indeed, no simulation mentioned, even indirectly; furthermore, it's not clear (to me at least) that this paper has anything to do with galaxy formation and evolution.

That might be revolving as in

Rotating elephant trunks[*]

G. F. Gahm1 - P. Carlqvist2 - L. E. B. Johansson3 - S. Nikolic4,5


1 - Stockholm Observatory, AlbaNova University Centre, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
2 - Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
3 - Onsala Space Observatory, 439 92 Onsala, Sweden
4 - Departamento de Astronomía, Universidad de Chile, Casilla 36D, Santiago, Chile
5 - Astronomical Observatory, Volgina 7, 11060 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro

Received 8 November 2005 / Accepted 26 January 2006

Abstract
Aims. We investigate the structure and velocity of cold molecular pillars, "elephant trunks'', in expanding H II regions.
Methods. The trunks are seen in silhouette against the bright background in our H$\alpha $ images. All trunks are filamentary, and show signs of being twisted. Four such trunks in NGC 7822, IC 1805, the Rosette Nebula, and DWB 44 were selected, and then mapped mainly in 12CO and 13CO. We determine the mass and density of the trunks. Most of the mass is concentrated in a head facing the central cluster, and in sub-filaments forming the body of the trunk that is connected to V-shaped filaments to the outer expanding shell.
Results. We discovered that all four trunks rotate as rigid bodies (to a first approximation) about their major axes, and that at least two trunks are stretching along their major axes, meaning that the massive heads are lagging behind in the general expansion of the H II regions. The rotational periods are of the order of a few million years - similar to the age of the clusters. Rotation, then, is responsible for the twisted appearance of many elephant trunks, since they are rooted in the outer shells. The trunks carry surprisingly large amounts of angular momentum, $3\times 10^{48}{-}2\times 10^{50}$ kg m2 s-1, with corresponding rotational energies of up to $\sim$1037 J. However, we estimate the total magnetic energies to be even larger. The trunks continuously reshape, and the formation of twined, and in many cases helical, sub-filaments can be understood as a consequence of electromagnetic and inertia forces inside the trunks. A theory based on the concept of magnetically twisted trunks is developed further, where the initial angular momentum is a consequence of the twisting of parent filaments containing mass condensations. Our results also suggest a new process of removing angular momentum from parent molecular clouds.

Key words: ISM: H II regions - ISM: clouds - ISM: kinematics and dynamics - ISM: magnetic fields
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...e&Itemid=129&bibcode=2006A%26A...454..201GFUL

I don't think so ("That might be revolving").

First, I did not mistype what's actually in the paper (by all means, check it for yourself).

Second, in context, "revolving" makes no sense (again, check it for yourself); granted, "evolving" doesn't make much sense, but "revolving" would make no sense at all.

Third, none of Peratt's papers (AFAIK) considers the kind of physical effect that the paper you, brantc, cite, nor does any of his work seem to have direct pertinence to "elephant trunks".

Oh, and let's stick to the topic of this thread, shall we?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Anthony Peratt did not derive that value.
I believe that the figure of 10^-4 for the ionization of neutral hydrogen in "space" (actually interstellar space, e.g. H I regions) is a observational value derived from measurements (temperature and density?) of the regions.

That's probably correct, though Peratt did not give a source for this.

What about the other two numbers*?

* "The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 10⁷ times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment."

 

[ben m]

That's probably correct, though Peratt did not give a source for this.

What about the other two numbers*?

* "The justification for applying plasma physics to galaxies evolving out of cosmic plasma is the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field; of order 10³⁶ times that of gravity and 10⁷ times that of gravity in neutral hydrogen in the space environment."

The first number is a classic i-am-ignoring-shielding number:

Two protons 1m apart: E force = 2x10^-28 N. G force = 2x10^-64 N. The ratio is 10^36. Since M and Q have different units, this is the sensible way to compare the forces (not the "strength" of the "fields")---by reference to a particular object (here a proton) with a fixed Q/M ratio.

I have no idea what the 10^7 number is; it sounds like nonsense.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The first number is a classic i-am-ignoring-shielding number:

Two protons 1m apart: E force = 2x10^-28 N. G force = 2x10^-64 N. The ratio is 10^36. Since M and Q have different units, this is the sensible way to compare the forces (not the "strength" of the "fields")---by reference to a particular object (here a proton) with a fixed Q/M ratio.

Thanks; pretty much what I expected (but still Peratt does not seem to have stated *how* HE arrived at this number!).

But why choose protons? Why not electrons, say, or singly ionised lead-208 ions? Or neutrinos, or photons, or helium-4 atoms, or ...?

And why did Peratt - who obviously knows the difference between a force and a field - refer to "the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field" in a book aimed at graduate students of physics?

I have no idea what the 10^7 number is; it sounds like nonsense.

It's just so strange, to me, that someone who has obviously done some good work in plasma physics makes arbitrary, sloppy, statements, without 'showing his working'.

I mean, would any one of us put up with something like this if one of our students handed in stuff like this as homework/coursework/etc?

 

[ben m]

And why did Peratt - who obviously knows the difference between a force and a field - refer to "the overwhelming strength of the electromagnetic field" in a book aimed at graduate students of physics?

...

I mean, would any one of us put up with something like this if one of our students handed in stuff like this as homework/coursework/etc?

You know, it's the sort of mistake anyone can make once or twice---a bit of oversimplification, perhaps a imperfect analogy clung to because it gives a sexy-sounding number. But most of us can tune this stuff up with the help of feedback from colleagues/audiences/referees.

I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets (personal attack removed) random PC enthusiasts saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets people like Zeuzzz and MM saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us.

Have you read my recent posts Ben?

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Edited, breach of Rule 11; do not attempt to derail threads - discussion of forum management issues should be posted in Forum Management.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Ahem.

So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma. In most situations, especially on scales smaller than molecular, electromagnetic forces far more stronger than gravitation. For example, assuming that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance R_E (the position vector being R_E) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm R_E/R_E³. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10^-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10^-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 10⁷. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized.

Leading on from my previous comments using the above simple example its easy to see why I say that peratts model of galaxy formation, while failing to explain the galactic orbit of stars or terrestrial objects, could provide an extremely useful model in predicting the possible current circuits followed by particles in each galaxy.

 

[Reality Check]

Have you read my recent posts Ben?

I think that he would have and disregarded them since you gave up on EM forces which are the basis of Perrat's debunked model.
If you have a viable model of galaxy formation of your own then start another thread or use Zeuzzz's questions about the standard model of galaxy morphology
- do not derail this one.

 

[Reality Check]

So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma....

For the second time: Please do not derail this thread, Zeuzzz.

We know that there are magnetic fields in space and that they have effects on the motions of ions. That is basic physics. What you are ignoring is that when you look at galactic scales, there magnetic fields have a much smaller effect than gravitational fields.

Have you ever read Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992?
This is that paper where Meierovich and Peratt show that the effects of gravity are 7 OOM (10,000,000) times greater than that of the EM forces. They did not realize this but tusenfem pointed this out on 5th June 2009.
So the irony is that Peratt falsifies his own model in this paper !

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Edited, breach of Rule 11; do not attempt to derail threads - discussion of forum management issues should be posted in Forum Management.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Locknar

Ahem.

So. The main reason why EM phenomena are so vital in cosmical models is the existence of celestial magnetic fields, which greatly alter the motion of all ions in space plasma. In most situations, especially on scales smaller than molecular, electromagnetic forces far more stronger than gravitation. For example, assuming that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance R_E (the position vector being R_E) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm R_E/R_E³. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10^-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10^-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 10⁷. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized.

Leading on from my previous comments using the above simple example its easy to see why I say that peratts model of galaxy formation, while failing to explain the galactic orbit of stars or terrestrial objects, could provide an extremely useful model in predicting the possible current circuits followed by particles in each galaxy.

What RC said.

Z, my questions are: "Does anyone know: a) how Peratt arrived at these values? b) in which publication did he make the derivations explicit?"

Do you have specific references, to Peratt's published papers etc? If so, please provide them; if not, please stop spamming this thread.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You know, it's the sort of mistake anyone can make once or twice---a bit of oversimplification, perhaps a imperfect analogy clung to because it gives a sexy-sounding number. But most of us can tune this stuff up with the help of feedback from colleagues/audiences/referees.

I can't imagine that Perratt is getting particularly useful professional feedback on his electric-universe stuff. He presumably gets (personal attack removed) random PC enthusiasts saying "Your number 10^7---or 107 or whatever, what does that caret mean?---is another nail in the coffin of the capitalist bourgeoisie evil cosmology conspiracy! Amen & don't back down!", and everyone else saying, "This is baloney; E&M forces in space are too small to affect cosmology. Please don't email me again." Neither of which are the sort of feedback that moderates this sort of thing in the rest of us.

Thanks, that seems very plausible.

It's doubly so considering that Peratt has not, AFAIK, ever published his astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology ideas in a journal like ApJ or MNRAS. Instead he's published - exclusively? - in IEEE publications, and I'm pretty sure there are no astrophysicists (etc) on any of their editorial boards, and (likely) none acted as peer reviewers.