Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[KingMerv00]

Its like an excited terrier with a bone.

If the theory is gonna get pwnd I'd rather it was done at the hands of an actual scientist, or maybe even the guy I actually asked here, thanks anyway, ben.

Therefore, Lithium.

Brilliant. I hope all of you naysayers wrote down all of this complex math.

 

[Dancing David]

Its like an excited terrier with a bone.

If the theory is gonna get pwnd I'd rather it was done at the hands of an actual scientist, or maybe even the guy I actually asked here, thanks anyway, ben.

So when asked to show your cards you fold, put them on the table, Zeuzz or again you will be refusing to support your assertion and using spin to score rhetorical standing.

If the theory is going to be trashed it is going to be trashed.

 

[sol invictus]

Lithium abundance.

You didn't answer any of the questions I asked you. The ball is still in your court.

Its like an excited terrier with a bone.

If the theory is gonna get pwnd I'd rather it was done at the hands of an actual scientist, or maybe even the guy I actually asked here, thanks anyway, ben.

As he says, ben knows this topic considerably better than I do (and that's not at all rare by the way). So he'll be participating in this (if he chooses to) whether you like it or not.

But in any case I at least am not going to spend my time on it until you demonstrate that you care enough to see it through, and that what comes out will have a reasonable impact on what you believe about PC. So you need to answer the questions in those posts first.

 

[Reality Check]

Lithium abundance.

Lerner's theory about Li production by cosmic ray spallation has been shown to be invalid for many years:
Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened"

But a further problem is that stars make no lithium and no deuterium. Lerner proposes that these elements are made by spallation in cosmic rays. But the cosmic rays have 80 deuterium nuclei for every lithium nucleus (Meyer, 1969, ARAA, 7, 1) while the Universe has about 6 million deuterium nuclei for every lithium nucleus. So if the lithium is entirely due to spallation in cosmic rays, the Universe is still missing 99.99% of the observed deuterium. Lerner's arithmetic once again fails by a large margin.

Lerner tried to address this in Dr. Wright is Wrong but misses the point that Dr Wright makes above. It is not the production of lithium that is the problem. It is the ratio between lithium and deuterium produced which is the problem.

Lerner published the paper on his theory in 1989 (PDF). Obviously he must have refined it since then and found some way around this problem.
So Zeuzzz:

Can you cite Lerner's current work on PC elemental abundance?
Maybe something published in the last decade or so?
​

 

[ben m]

Lithium ahoy. Again, there's no point in going forward unless there's going to be some serious science.

For the PC side, you're going to provide papers presenting the PC theory of lithium production. Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

And most importantly, you have to say - in advance, before we analyze it - that this particular lithium-production hypothesis is a core part of PC, that the success of PC depends significantly on it, and that if this particular lithium-abundance hypothesis were falsified, it would falsify or significantly weaken the case for PC as a theory of cosmology.

As opposed to "I found some stuff on Google and figured I'd throw it out there."

As opposed to "Well, something about lithium shows something about LCDM is wrong. PC can't actually predict lithium on its own."

And as opposed to "The PC I care about deals mostly with giant currents between galaxies. You can tack on some unrelated cosmic-ray hypotheses that deal with lithium, I suppose, but the falsification of those doesn't make me question the thing with the currents."

 

[Zeuzzz]

Brilliant. I hope all of you naysayers wrote down all of this complex math.

Would be kinda pointless to write down the maths, even I only linked to it, typing it out here would be extremely laborious.

Its quite hard to get the full details of Lerners model for Li when his first publication on it is missing the page after where he says "The generation of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron also by cosmic ray interactions depends on relatively tiny [....]"

Then theres a missing page. Then the conclusion. I've definitely read it before as I remember some of the particle production model he proposed. Its related very closely to the Deuterium model, I remember that much.

"Deuterium is produced by cosmic rays in the reaction p + p —> d + π , which has a cross section of 3.3 mb for energies around 1 GeV"

"Deuterium production by the p + p —> d + π reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10^-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.

In its present form, the plasma-stellar theory of light elements does not give a prediction for the absolute abundance of ⁷Li. The observed low and variable abundances of cosmic -ray spallation products of C, N, and O, which are ⁹Be and ¹¹B in old stars, indicates that ⁷Li was probably formed by He-He fusion in the interstellar medium, but more modeling will be needed to develop concrete predictions."

So, looks like maybe PC prediction for Li abundances are probably as bad as the Big Bangs predictions.

Based on this I might change it to the predictions made for other elements, helium would be the obvious one, but carbon or deuterium would be fair game. I reckon ⁴He.

The calculations he did contain no free variables and give a much broader range of anticipated abundances than big bang nucleosynthesis, as PC postulates a element formation model occurring to differing extents in individual galaxies based on numerous factors. The range of values predicted for ⁴He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. As H_e varies inversely with V²/R_m the upper limits of V²/R_m gives the lower limits for H_e that can be tested against observation.

More info in this publication (page 3 onwards):

http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Plasma Model an Alternative To The Big Bang.pdf

For those of you that seem averse to clicking on links I post, heres a pretty little screen capture of a bit of the publication, as a treat just for you.

 

[Tubbythin]

Would be kinda pointless to write down the maths, even I only linked to it, typing it out here would be extremely laborious.

Its quite hard to get the full details of Lerners model for Li when his first publication on it is missing the page after where he says "The generation of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron also by cosmic ray interactions depends on relatively tiny [....]"

Then theres a missing page. Then the conclusion. I've definitely read it before as I remember some of the particle production model he proposed. Its related very closely to the Deuterium model, I remember that much.

"Deuterium is produced by cosmic rays in the reaction p + p —> d + π , which has a cross section of 3.3 mb for energies around 1 GeV"

"Deuterium production by the p + p —> d + π reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10^-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.

In its present form, the plasma-stellar theory of light elements does not give a prediction for the absolute abundance of ⁷Li. The observed low and variable abundances of cosmic -ray spallation products of C, N, and O, which are ⁹Be and ¹¹B in old stars, indicates that ⁷Li was probably formed by He-He fusion in the interstellar medium, but more modeling will be needed to develop concrete predictions."

So, looks like maybe PC prediction for Li abundances are probably as bad as the Big Bangs predictions.

If not worse.

Based on this I might change it to the predictions made for other elements, helium would be the obvious one, but carbon or deuterium would be fair game. I reckon ⁴He.

Ok. I'd be interested to see a better fit than from the Big Bang model.

The calculations he did contain no free variables and give a much broader range of anticipated abundances than big bang nucleosynthesis, as PC postulates a element formation model occurring to differing extents in individual galaxies based on numerous factors. The range of values predicted for ⁴He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. As H_e varies inversely with V²/R_m the upper limits of V²/R_m gives the lower limits for H_e that can be tested against observation.

You say this like its a good thing

 

[sol invictus]

The calculations he did contain no free variables and give a much broader range of anticipated abundances than big bang nucleosynthesis, as PC postulates a element formation model occurring to differing extents in individual galaxies based on numerous factors. The range of values predicted for ⁴He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. As H_e varies inversely with V²/R_m the upper limits of V²/R_m gives the lower limits for H_e that can be tested against observation.

One of the strengths of standard cosmology is that BBN constitutes a very tight constraint. Essentially all the light elements in the universe are supposed to have been formed in the span of a few minutes. Since the universe at that time was (according to BBT) very homogeneous, they formed in the same way everywhere, and with relative abundances that are predictable from fairly basic physics.

All one needs to know is the plasma density and temperature and the age of the universe at that time and one can then predict all the element abundances. You can get the temperature, density, and age from observations of hydrogen and the CMB today. But then all light element abundances except hydrogen are falsifiable predictions of the model

Making lots of falsifiable predictions from very few parameters is a great virtue in a scientific theory - it means that if it's wrong, it should be very obviously wrong.

 

[ben m]

So, looks like maybe PC prediction for Li abundances are probably as bad as the Big Bangs predictions.

Based on this I might change it to the predictions made for other elements, helium would be the obvious one, but carbon or deuterium would be fair game. I reckon ⁴He.

Remember, Zeuzzz, this is exactly what happened with every other PC prediction. We asked you to come up with something for exactly the above---"It came up on Google, but on investigation it's pretty bad, but that doesn't falsify PC"---wouldn't happen. But there it is.

Why, Zeuzzz, did you cite "lithium abundance" in your two-word response to the challenge? Is that response now inoperative?

 

[ben m]

The calculations he did contain no free variables

Sure they do. Why did he use 3 GeV protons---why not an E^-2.7 spectrum, not 10 GeV, etc---? That's a choice he made (based on no direct information) but stuck with because he liked the output. These rays impinged (for how long?) on a target (of what materials, and what density?). Those are free parameters----just for starters. Given the lacuna in the paper there may be more.

 

[ben m]

No Zeuzzz, it doesn't work that way. You asserted that PC is more predictive than the BB. Now it's time to back that up. So you pick one prediction of PC, we'll take a look.
...

And most importantly, you have to say - in advance, before we analyze it - that it is a core part of PC, that the success of PC depends significantly on it, and that if it were falsified, it would falsify or significantly weaken the case for PC as a theory of cosmology.

Lithium abundance.

So, looks like maybe PC prediction for Li abundances are probably as bad as the Big Bangs predictions.

Based on this I might change it to the predictions made for other elements, helium would be the obvious one, but carbon or deuterium would be fair game. I reckon ⁴He.

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[Reality Check]

Siggy_G: "Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation"

Siggy_G is posting about plasma cosmology another thread so I will resurrect this one in an attempt to get him to post in the appropriate thread.

You're correct about Alfvén and Peratt not having written Electric Universe papers. Yet, the Electric Universe is consistently based on the Plasma Cosmology foundation ...

And once again your have not grasped the facts that

• Alfven's Plasma Cosmology is invalid and
• C E R Bruce was a crank who was obsessed with making lightning (his area of expertise) responsible for a lot of astronomical phenomena. To do this he ignored basic observations like the temperature of the Sun.
• Even worse is citing Jürgens, a Velikovskian supporter :
  R. E. Juergens, "Plasma in Interplanetary Space: Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovskian Catastrophism," Penseé IVR II (Fall 1972), pp. 6-12; Velikovsky Reconsidered (N. Y., 1976), pp. 137-155. First presented at the Lewis & Clark Symposium, Portland, OR, August 15-17, 1972.
  
  R. E. Juergens ideas about comets have not withstood the test of time. The tails of comets act just as if hey are sublimated gases from the ices that have been measured to be in comets. The EM activity in the tails is what is expected from ionization of the gases by the solar wind.
  The actual Electric Comet idea is so bad that it is not even wrong: The Electric Comet theory.
• Thornhill has a record of lying about the Electric Universe theory: The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
• Scott's work is easily debunked: "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" (PDF) by W.T. Bridgman at Crank Astronomy.
  He deals with Scott's rebuttal on his blog.

 

[Reality Check]

Siggy_G: Alfvén wrote about Plasma Cosmology not the nonsense of plasma cosmology

In contrast to what you state, Alfvén wrote several papers on 'cosmology in the plasma universe'

What I stated was exactly what you quoted:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

• Alfvén never wrote anything on plasma cosmology or Electric Universe so citing him is wrong.
  Alfvén agreed with standard astrophysics. He wrote a couple of standard astrophysics papers using circuit models of solar flares.

Maybe restating this will allow you to understand this:

• Alfvén never wrote anything on "plasma cosmology".
• Alfvén never wrote anything on the "Electric Universe".
• Alfvén agreed with standard astrophysics. He wrote a couple of standard astrophysics papers using circuit models of solar flares.
• Alfvén wrote wrote several papers on 'cosmology in the plasma universe' (Plasma Cosmology. These papers were shown to be invalid by observations (e.g. the CMB).

Alfvén wrote about Plasma Cosmology not the nonsense of plasma cosmology.

Peratt's work is in-line with and continued from Alfvén's work.

Peratt's work that "continued from Alfvén's work" was his model of galaxy formation that was fundamentally flawed and later debunked by Peratt himself ( Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation).

 

[Zeuzzz]

So, the general consensus to date, is that even though there are no peer reviewed direct refutations to any off the peer reviewed plasma cosmology esque papers I have linked to (Alfvens original epistemic approach, followed by material by Lerner, Peratt, et al) and have quoted here many times to date (not one refutation [despite their numerous references for non cosmological plasma physics], I should say again, if you have found one, then please feel free to post now) this is of little significance, as "crackpot incorrect" theories should be ignored by the standard cosmology community, who have far more pressing matters with their work on Big Bang theory and how this approach to cosmology is developing.

Is that a reasonably fair statement to make?

[@ Reality Check, if you choose to answer, please answer that bolded question, and only that question. I do not want a long bullet point list of issues I have not answered before, or what you personally disagree with about the theories. If you want to, save for a later time please]

 

[Reality Check]

That is not a reasonably fair statement to make.

The general consensus is that plasma cosmology is not science.
It is not science since the only definition seems to be any persons personal collection of often mutually exclusive, often incorrect theories that only have the common thread of assuming that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

There are actual direct refutations to many of the peer reviewed plasma cosmology-esque papers you have linked to.
The lack of peer reviewed refutations is just a symptom of the lack of interest in these papers (and the occasional hiding away of cosmological papers in non-astronomy journals).

The peer reviewed papers you have linked to (Alfvén's original epistemic approach, followed by material by Lerner, Peratt, et al) are

• Not modern plasma cosmology (Alfvén's Plasma Cosmology) or
• Nothing to do with plasma cosmology ("Alfvén's original epistemic approach") or
• Standard plasma physics. or
• Often ignored because they are obviously wrong or obscure.
• Refuted (material by Lerner, Peratt) or
• Occasionally abandoned by the author, e.g. Peratt.

Short enough for you, Zeuzzz ?

 

[Reality Check]

Asked on 15th December 2010

Lerner published the paper on his theory in 1989 (PDF). Obviously he must have refined it since then and found some way around this problem.
So Zeuzzz:

Can you cite Lerner's current work on PC elemental abundance?
Maybe something published in the last decade or so?
​

A lot of science has been done since 1989. There should be more data supporting Lerner's theory!

Or can we conclude from Lerner's silence that Lerner has abandoned this theory about elemental abundance?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sigh.

Reality check. I said I don't care about your views on plasma cosmology. Or to make a bullet point list.

And what do you do?

I didn't even say it was a science in that post, so straw-man.

Wait, forget the above sentence, else your going to start arguing with that.

I'll try again:

Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to?

(I understand you will disagree with the italicized part, so please answer the non italicized as a separate question, if you feel the need. The answer to the first should be a very very simple answer, even a yes or no will suffice)

 

[Reality Check]

Sigh.

Sigh - I answered your question. That is not a reasonably fair statement to make because the general consensus is that plasma cosmology is not science.
(you got the general consensus wrong making the rest of your quesion moot).

Is the epistemic approach to cosmology that Afven started, which was subsequently followed up by a fair few models in support of this by Lerner and Peratt et al, laregly ignored today by the cosmological community at large, who now invest all their interest in BBT derived theories, based on their interpretation of multitudes of astrophysical data they have assigned cosmological significance to?

You have the facts wrong and thus your question is senseless.

Alfvén did not start any epistemic approach to cosmology. He stated an alternative cosmological model that has been shown to be wrong using the standard scientific approach.

Lerner did not continue any work of Alfven.
Perrat's cited work is not cosmology (it is galaxy formation and wrong!).

This thing you imagine to exist is totally ignored by by the cosmological community at large because they do not know that it exists !
Plasma cosmology is largely ignored by the cosmological community at large because it is incapable of matching what we observe about the universe, e.g. the CMB power spectrum.

And the italicized part is very wrong.
The cosmological community at large assigns cosmological significance to cosmological data such as the redshifts of galaxies, CMB, lyman-alpha forest, etc.

ETA
The "epistemic" bit may be related to my post back on 23rd July 2008

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).
...
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

i.e. you are thinking about the scaling up of the known physics.

The scaling up though debunks plasma cosmology since EM forces are shielded on much smaller scales than cosmological scales.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ok, you ignore and refuse to answer my question. In which case i'm done with you today and the subsequent derails you've evoked. Stop ignoring the question, and we can continue.

You know what I mean. Or do I have to, again, link you to Alfvens original paper where he explains the epistemic differences in approach? ie, Origin in time is not allowed, due to violation of the laws of physics as we currently know it, and that the originator of the idea himself (Hoyle) only proposed it as a joke idea, that seemed to gain what he considered completely irrational support from cosmologists at large ever since, which he saw as nothing more than an idea based on (what was at the time) just a brain thought inferred from one possible way to look at, what was at the time, very limited data. There are more, but being the "expert" you are I expect you know them all, so quote them.

 

[Zeuzzz]