Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

[Siggy_G]

Dancing David, thanks for your input. I responded firstly to Astroman's initial pronouncement which was exactly an attack aimed at A.Peratt. (His follow-up post wasn't any less belittleling or misguided)

I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy. In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions.

Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models. Fair enough, and in the few cases of cosmology work, one can't expect any astrophysisists to take plasma cosmology "into consideration in their work", when it defies the standard model which his or her work may be related to. However, unless being interested and liberated to do so. The logical extension of that is, that we continue digging deeper into one specific cave, independant of it being right or wrong. It is the established model that gets modified, not the fundamental approach. This would otherwise include re-examening the potential kinetic influence of electric currents and recognizing double layers and discharge configurations within a low density plasma, which space occur to be.

As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude.

 

[edd]

Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists.

This just isn't true.

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David, thanks for your input. I responded firstly to Astroman's initial pronouncement which was exactly an attack aimed at A.Peratt. (His follow-up post wasn't any less belittleling or misguided)

I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour),

here is the deal, do the math, takes the masses and don't pretend that stars are all plasma that can be effected by Perrat's model, it will mainly influence the free plasma between stars.
Then do the math Perrat used major mega magnetic fields in a 10 cm. vessel, now looks up the magnetic field in a galaxy and tell me what you find.

It will be way too small, especially when you try to scale Perrat's model to a real galaxy.

Seriously do the math, the galactic magnetic field is way to small.

nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy.

Don't use false arguments, and BTW so you don't believe in nutrinos? Why not?

In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions.

Look up Perrats reasearch, what was the field strength in the 10 cm vessel, seriously go look it up, now scale it to the size of teh galaxy, it fails to meet observations.

period.

Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models.

Blah blah blah, and there are thousand of them who work specifically in plasma physics in astrophysics, and they are the ones who say Perrat's model is wrong, I wonder why?

these are plasma astrophysicists after all.

there is no conspiracy.

Fair enough, and in the few cases of cosmology work, one can't expect any astrophysisists to take plasma cosmology "into consideration in their work",

********, out right horse hockey and total crap.

Just because the vast majority of people who actually research plasma and work with it in astrophysics say that the 'Plasma Universe' stuff is wrong, it is not funding.

It is that the theories are hooey.

when it defies the standard model which his or her work may be related to. However, unless being interested and liberated to do so. The logical extension of that is, that we continue digging deeper into one specific cave, independant of it being right or wrong. It is the established model that gets modified, not the fundamental approach.

********, that is a load of political crap , what do you read Thunderbolts.

Just how many people study plasma is space do you think?

Huh.

This would otherwise include re-examening the potential kinetic influence of electric currents and recognizing double layers and discharge configurations within a low density plasma, which space occur to be.

Excuse me, what is the Debye length for the interstellar medium and why does it matter?

As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state?

I am saying that the plasma universe people are wrong, such things do exist, just not the way that they pretend that they do.

They just want to pretend that imaginary space is more important than real observation.

You tell me something they are ignoring.

Seriously, citations, data and evidence.

And then we can discuss it.

Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude.

What is the Debye length of the interstellar medium and why would it matter?

 

[ben m]

I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy.

Two points:

a) Peratt's model does far worse than "not match the behavior". It takes a simulation in which *all of the inputs are nonsense* and it gets an output which (a) rotates like a rigid solid and (b) bears a vague visual resemblance to, among other things, a spiral galaxy.

b) The data (dynamic data, static (lensing) data, cosmology) all say that the forces involved obey the equivalence principle. The data show that galaxies/clusters, whatever they are, are exerting the same force on a black hole that they exert on a star, a plasma, an atom, an ion, and a photon. Gravity does that. E&M does not. That's why we start with gravity and (if necessary) gravity-like theories.

In other words, at the time Peratt's model was proposed, the gravity models didn't match the observed dynamics of the universe. They still don't, if you consider dark matter and dark energy mathematical fudge factors compensating for failed predictions.

I don't consider them as fudge factors. They're straightforward observations, all explained perfectly well by a simple and parsimonious hypothesis.

I've said this many times: the anti-dark-matter argument seems to make an unstated assumption. It seems to imagine (for the sake of illustration I'll make it theistic) "God must have written the laws of physics with as few stable particles as possible. He presumably limited himself to things that would appear in late-20th-century human collider experiments." There is no basis for this view in actual particle physics.

Re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics is very seldomly an abstract for astrophysisists. They usually get specific assignments from their university or institution (e.g. NASA), and most of it is based around an additional aspect to the established models.

What the heck? Not even close.

As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state?

They are present, but they're really pretty straightforward. On short length scales they have a bunch of plasma-specific properties. On long length scales (longer than a few Alfven wavelengths) they behave just like any other gas, with internal magnetic fields doing nothing more than adding a pressure-like term. We put that pressure (correctly) into calculations.

 

[Aitch]

Then you have the obvious places where the model falls apart because it just does not match the behavior of the universe.

Maybe he's working to the HotchHikers Guide ethos:

This was the gist of the notice. It said "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."

 

[Siggy_G]

I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models). Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity? Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures.

My statement of dark matter and dark energy being hypothetical factors are not false arguments. These properties were introduced to account for discrepancies of observed cosmic dynamics versus the calculated/predicted dynamics. I'm not going to elaborate here on what dark energy and dark matter are thought to be – you can read up on it yourself, or you may already know that they are hypothetical factors (although broadly accepted).

When I state that most of the astrophysical research is not about re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics, the point is further that most of what is done is researching detection methods, technology, collecting data and interpreting gazillions of data. This extensive work is done in relation to existing established models, and it is a natural cause of empirical methods. So, it's the established models that gets modified and become further complex. I haven't suggested conspiracies. Nor do I reject that astrophysics deals with plasma – it's just that most of that work is related to e.g. the corona, solar wind, auroras and Sun/stellar interiors, and not in a cosmological relation.

Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles. They are, as some of you state, thought to be insignificant in this regard. So, here lies the difference in approach and aknowledgement between mainstream versus plasma cosmology / the electric universe theory. Instead, we see proposals like accelerated expansion, dark flow, multiple universes and the likes, as the only thinkable cosmic scenarios in a gravity-only driven universe. Perhaps these are more gleaming displays of imagination. If you think these are such outrageous statements, be a little more specific in your critisism.

 

[Dancing David]

I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models). Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity? Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures.

What is the Debye length for interstellar medium and why would it matter?

You obviously don't know how weak the galactic magnetic field.

perrat's model is a non-starter from the get go, which if you did some reading you would find out.

Why would a ten centimeter vessel with very high magnetic fields have any thing to do with a 80,000 light year across galaxy with incredibly weak magnetic fields?

What further dynamics?

My statement of dark matter and dark energy being hypothetical factors are not false arguments. These properties were introduced to account for discrepancies of observed cosmic dynamics versus the calculated/predicted dynamics.

Neutrinos are dark matter, do you think they are hypothetical, they are less hypothetical than plasma effects that extend way past the Debye length.

I'm not going to elaborate here on what dark energy and dark matter are thought to be – you can read up on it yourself, or you may already know that they are hypothetical factors (although broadly accepted).

When I state that most of the astrophysical research is not about re-examening the fundamentals of cosmic dynamics, the point is further that most of what is done is researching detection methods, technology, collecting data and interpreting gazillions of data.

false , what is your evidence?

C'mon, you say it now back it up.

Where are these alternate explanations that are being ignored?

Why don't you tell us what they are?

This extensive work is done in relation to existing established models, and it is a natural cause of empirical methods. So, it's the established models that gets modified and become further complex. I haven't suggested conspiracies. Nor do I reject that astrophysics deals with plasma – it's just that most of that work is related to e.g. the corona, solar wind, auroras and Sun/stellar interiors, and not in a cosmological relation.

What is the Debye length and why would it matter?

how is a plasma going to effect cosmology outside of the very very very young universe?

Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles.

What is the Debye length and why would it matter?

They are, as some of you state, thought to be insignificant in this regard. So, here lies the difference in approach and aknowledgement between mainstream versus plasma cosmology / the electric universe theory.

You really need tio look up the Debye length and then explain why the influence of plasma would matter.

Seriously you are just touting some magical thinking and spin politics.

Look up the Debye length for the interstellar medium.

Here is a clue, it will be shorter for the intergalactic medium.

So how it is going to work?

Instead, we see proposals like accelerated expansion, dark flow, multiple universes and the likes, as the only thinkable cosmic scenarios in a gravity-only driven universe.

Plasma has a role, just not the fantastic imaginary ones some people who ignore real plasma physics and pretend they know something about plasma.

Perhaps these are more gleaming displays of imagination. If you think these are such outrageous statements, be a little more specific in your critisism.

So you don't know why the Debye length matters? Look it up.

And what theories are you presenting to explain what data and observation?

You should really tell us what is being ignored,

So how do you think plasma would explain what is cosmology?

 

[ben m]

Since each star is engulfed in a large magnetosphere, and since the space within them and between them are filled with low density plasma, why shouldn't there exist significant plasma dynamics in addition to gravity?

Sure, the low-density plasma pushes other low-density plasmas around; it does so on short length scales (an Alfven wavelength). The forces are too short-range to have any impact on galaxy/cluster/cosmology-scale kinematics. If you want to talk about what plasma/gas forces *can* do on on large scales---sure, this is an exciting field called "gastrophysics".

Further, magnetic fields, measured all over the universe, must be sustained by some form of electric current. Electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures.

Magnetic fields over long scales are incredibly weak, and as far as we can tell largely disorganized. The "currents" involved are generally the (a) turbulent eddy-current-like things in (e.g.) shocks, and (b) the residual magnetic fields of stars.

And no, there's no generic statement "electromagnetic forces are expected to form filamentary structures". It's simply not true. Sometimes they do (lightning) and sometimes they don't (the solar wind), it depends what they're acting on.

Further, as far as I know, there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions or according electrical engineering principles.

That's because one can't explain cosmic dynamics as large scale plasma interactions. Plasma does not have the property of exerting long-range forces at all.

Likewise, " there have been no contemporary attempts in mainstream astrophysics of explaining cosmic dynamics as": giant lengths of twine, nor as neutrino-neutrino collisions, nor as large clockworks made of Perspex, nor as hydrodynamics, nor as quantum chromodynamics, nor as pink-bunny-mediated quantum gravity. Is that a problem for you? I hope not, because they don't work.

The plasma-cosmology thing is always "well it WOULD work if more people would help us nail down the details." Is that so? The pink-bunny theory can say the same thing, can't they? Anyway, forget the details---plasma cosmology has failed to generate any E&M forces whatsoever over cosmological distance scales. We're not talking about failing to match some detail of a rotation curve somewhere. We're talking about places where our data shows a force of order 1 and plasma physics predicts a force of order 10^-30 or smaller. What's nailing the details going to do---specify that the force is really 2.25(3)x10^-29?

 

[Reality Check]

I acknowledge your points on some of the short-comings of Peratt's models, but as to not matching the behavior of the universe (I assume you know its behaviour), nor does the gravity-only driven model match dynamic observations, if you remove the hypothetical entities: dark matter or dark energy.

You have obviously not bothered to read the thread.

The short-comings of Peratt's model is that it predicts things that do not exist:

• Double-lobe radio galaxies are almost universally hosted in elliptical galaxies.
  His model predicts that double-lobe radio galaxies are actually double-lobed.
• The reason that spiral galaxies look like they have spiral arms is not because there are actual arms (with no matter in between them) but because they are "arms" of high mass density containing lots of bright young stars. The density of matter in between the arms is 10-20% less than the density of matter in the arms (not 100%).
  The mass distribution of elliptical galaxies is ellipsoidal so a plane through them produces various ellipses from nearly a circle to flattened to a large degree.
  The mass distribution of spiral galaxies is a central bulge contained within a flat disk along with a near-spherical halo outside the disk and bulge. The mass distribution of a plane running through the disk produces a disk with minor variations in density.

We could stop there since these mismatches with our universe already invalidates Peratt's model. But there many other problems with his model:

• It ignores gravity completely.
• It predicts galactic sized plasma filaments that would be easily detected. They are not.
• These galactic sized plasma filaments are unstable.

And since you really do not like "hypothetical entities" what about his:

• (Invisible) Galactic sized plasma filaments!
• )Invisible) Enormous electric currents flowing though them from an unknown source!

The simple fact that Anthony Peratt has never repeated the computer simulations indicates that even he thinks his model is wrong. In the past 24 years computer modeling of plasmas has been improved greatly. The available computing power has also grown greatly.
The simple fact that no astronomer, cosmologist or even plasma scientist has repeated the computer simulations indicates that no scientist thinks that his model is correct.

ETA

I've already aknowledged certain shortcomings in Peratt's model, but it doesn't mean he didn't demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments. As said, further dynamics have been suggested since 1986 (as with standard models).

Anthony Peratt did "demonstrate important dynamics of plasma filaments". Specifically he demonstrated that his computer simulations could duplicate the shapes of the plasmoids in the plasma experiments that inspired him to do the simulations. A pity that his results have noting to do with galaxies or their formation.

 

[tusenfem]

As to my imagination, are you saying that astrophysical plasmas aren't present? Or that the intergalactical and interplanetary medium isn't in the plasma state? Or that Birkeland currents don't exist? Electric currents are expected to occur filamentary even within quasi-neutral plasmas, and it is not some random guess, it in accordance with plasma physics. One of the experimentally confirmed properties of plasma, is that its bahaviour is scalable over several orders of magnitude.

The fact that you state "even in quasi-neutral plasmas" shows that you have no idea about plasma physics, as basically all space plasmas are quasi-neutral. Maybe you should look up the definition of quasi-neutral.

And if, as you say, electric currents are expected to occur "filamentary" (which I will not deny) then why should we take a 35 kpc current channel seriously? Really!?!?!

ETA: Just a quick note. This all has to do with the "plasma universe" model in which the universe dynamics is supposed to be totally driven by plasmas and electromagnetic fields. However, in order to show that I can also see things that are good by what e.g. Peratt has written, if you look at his book (physics of the plasma universe), then the basic plasma physics that is discussed is sound, and you can even come across instabilities that are not discussed often in other books, e.g. the diacotron instability. However, the application to astrophysical objects, like galaxies should be regarded very skeptically for the reasons mentioned above.

And yes, plasma physics is scalable, but you have to do it in the correct way.

 

[Zeuzzz]

How many theories are reliant on each other to account for the average galaxy morphology by the "standard" model? Ie, Supermassiveblackhole = 1, rotating disk = 2, dark matter = 3, etc.

 

[Reality Check]

How many theories are reliant on each other to account for the average galaxy morphology by the "standard" model? Ie, Supermassiveblackhole = 1, rotating disk = 2, dark matter = 3, etc.

This is off the topic which is Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation, not the standard models of galaxy formation. If you are interested in the answer then please start a new thread.

Do you have anything to contribute to the OP?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Can we not compare the properties of this theory to the main other theories in the game?

For example, do you need 3 theories (super massive black hole, arm gas/fluid dynamics, disk core) to explain the morphology of the average galaxy using standard theories?

I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP.

 

[Reality Check]

Can we not compare the properties of this theory to the main other theories in the game?

For example, do you need 3 theories (super massive black hole, arm gas/fluid dynamics, disk core) to explain the morphology of the average galaxy using standard theories?

I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP.

No. As you have stated the theory fails. There is no point in dicussing a failed theory or comparing a failed theory to one that works.

Your post is off topic for 2 reasons:

• it is not about Anthony Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• it is not about galaxy formation- it is about shapes or to be more exact visual appearances: Galaxy morphological classification.

Start a new thread.
I will give a quick answer here - you need lots of theories to explain the morphology of galaxies, e.g. you forgot about the theories of gravity and quantum mechanics (for the light from stars and gas).
So what? (please answer in your new thread).

 

[tusenfem]

I believe the main failing of the theory has been adequately pointed out in the OP.

Well, cool, then we can finally throw out Peratt's model, close this thread and move on with our lifes.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well, cool, then we can finally throw out Peratt's model, close this thread and move on with our lifes.

Oh sorry, did not realize that some people put their lives on hold to wait for my humble opinion on Peratts plasma galaxy model here.

Thank you. Nice to know that my opinion is so highly regarded around here.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And if I were to stick my teeth into this again I would probably give up on the EM forces and speculate on the possible geometric similarities between the gravitational field and the x^-1 field used for Amperes Law (Or equivalent Biot Savart force law) and postulate the role that negative mass could have on galaxy formation. Negative inertial masses in certain initial formations gives mathematical consistency, and adequate conservation of momentum or energy, and could be used in a similar way to NASA's BPP program models, like the Diametric drive.

And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy.

... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars.

 

[Reality Check]

...snipped even more off topic stuff...
And if anyone can demonstrate to me the current galactic flows of plasma ions in galaxy models that would be great. Such as whether gravity or electromagnetism dominates their motion at most places within a galaxy.

For the third time Zeuzzz - start a new thread for questions that are not about the OP.
ETA
Since you seem unable to do this I have done for you: Zeuzzz's questions about the standard model of galaxy morphology

... I would think that Peratts model could prove extremely useful in this regard, when applied to particles, not stars.

the first paragraph is OP.
Peratts model is applied to particles (plasma!), not stars, and since it is wrong is totally useless in any regard.

I think that what you mean is that standard physics is useful when applied to flows of plasma in galaxies. That is obvious.

 

[Siggy_G]

(Been away for some days)

You have obviously not bothered to read the thread. (...)

I have indeed read the OP and thread. As I mentioned in the final section in my first post, "I'll try to elaborate further on the [Peratt] model and possible extended research in an upcoming post" (my first post was also initially a reply to the one before that). It's just that I was overwhelmed by the guardians at the gate, which I feel obliged to respond to first. So hold your horses - further input on the way.

There's a few misconceptions in the initial posts in this thread - although I'm not arguing the competence in your criticism. A little anxious and tense perhaps as to defending current consensus and black painting any attempts of viewing space differently. Which makes me wonder, how can you all know for certain how the universe works and how it doesn't, when current (peer-reviewed and mathematically verified) models need 96% unknown factors to explain the observed dynamics? One thing we can say for certain, is that something else than gravity from known mass is largely affecting cosmic dynamics. The observed discrepancies should cause different approaches to be explored, beyond gravitational mass. It shouldn't merely make established models curl in on itself and become more abstractly complex, by assuming only one driving factor.

 

[Siggy_G]

No. As you have stated the theory fails. There is no point in dicussing a failed theory or comparing a failed theory to one that works.

Why do you crown the current theory as working? If it worked, it would mean that the amount of detected luminous mass would account for the galaxies' surprisingly large angular momentum (compared to what is predicted by gravity formulas). The theory require 96% unknown factors, so to speak, beyond known gravitational mass, in order to somewhat explain the observed dynamics. It should be a clear sign that we need to look into models that utilizes other major factors than gravity, and fortunately, I believe Alfven, Peratt and Thornhill are the only few that has attempted this.