Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation

[tusenfem]

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.

And naturally that is not exactly true. The cosmic magnetic fields are on the order of nanoTesla or smaller. So it completely depends on the energy of the particles, telling us whether they are magnetized or not, and on the so-called plasma-β (~ nT/B²) which tells us what dominates, the plasma or the magnetic field.

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.

which basically means that the magnetic field is important and the dumb 36 orders of magnitude between gravity and electric force does not come in.

(Msun 2 10³⁰kg, Mh 1.67 10^-27 kg, G 6.67 10^-11, AU 1.5 10⁸ m)
The gravitational force is Fg ~ 10^-50 N

(q 1.6 10^-19 C, B 5 10^-9 T, v 30 km/s)
The Lorentz force is Fl ~ 10^-23 N

The Fl depends on what velocity you take, I took the Earth's orbital velocity. MMMM I get a difference that is not even close to 10⁷
But then again, it is hardly the kind of calculation you want to do, because the Lorentz force only makes the particle gyrate around the magnetic field, now if you have a nice cloud of particles on that field line of density N, then the gravitational force working on a unit lenght of the field line is going to increase by N, etc. etc. It is fun relatively comparing forces, but whether or not it has any real meaning remains to be found out. Usually, the answer is no.

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.

Well, as the above example is clearly wrong ......

 

[Zeuzzz]

I refuse to be drawn into an e-penis size contest dictated by the size of the formulae posted.

But if you really want me to, like really really, we all need to get our formulae out together and give them a good thorough running over.

Game?

 

[tusenfem]

I refuse to be drawn into an e-penis size contest dictated by the size of the formulae posted.

But if you really want me to, like really really, we all need to get our formulae out together and give them a good thorough running over.

Game?

Sure baby, why don't you start?

However, it is not about the 107, ithe discussion was about the comparison of apples and oranges, how you cannot take gravity of an H to the sun and then the Lorentz force of a proton with whatever velocity you choose. Comparing values only works if you set up the correct situation.

 

[brantc]

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?

Sorry. But actually if the galaxy started from a Birkeland current then the rotational speed (of the filaments(elephant trunks)) might play a factor.

Anyway. Back to the thread.

 

[Arthur Mann]

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.

The above comments are not really relevant to the discussion at hand or to the information in Peratt's papers. Where are you published?

 

[Arthur Mann]

Perrat's debunked model

Which model by Peratt has been debunked?

 

[Tubbythin]

Which model by Peratt has been debunked?

The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity.

 

[Arthur Mann]

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

You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this.

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

How big should it be? Show the math.

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?

Some names of these thousands?

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.

Name some of them?

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

There are different ways to exist now?

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

Actually plasma cosmologists do the reverse, they pretend space is imaginary and real observations are important.

 

[Tubbythin]

The above comments are not really relevant to the discussion at hand or to the information in Peratt's papers. Where are you published?

If someone tries to claim that Peratt's work should not be ignored because it is in a peer-reviewed journal and the peer review for that journal has no people with the relevant ability to review it then of course its relevant.

 

[Arthur Mann]

The one that ignores gravity in supposed simulations of gravity.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity. Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not sure what you're talking about, maybe you could be more specific, with dates perhaps, or conclusions, or anything really. Peratt has said that plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, not that ignoring gravity can explain gravity.

If he said that then he's wrong. Please provide a direct quote.

Plasmas are ionized matter and are therefore affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces on every scale and at every distance.

Nope. Completely and trivially false.

 

[Tubbythin]

You have some math demonstrating this? I don't agree with the premise, but it would interest me to know how you derived this.

You really really don't get this whole burden of proof thing do you? It is the proponent of the model that has to show their model fits the data, not the detractors to show that it doesn't.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Astronomy is the science that includes the observations...

If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind.

that provide the overwhelming evidence for the existence of dark matter and the good evidence for the existence of dark energy.

You claim there is "evidence" that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is anecdotal evidence for it, sure, people tell stories about it, so what you said is factually correct. Can you show even a single experiment that demonstrates the existence of dark matter, or of dark energy? Experiment is fundamental to science. If you're not performing experiments, you're not doing science.

Cosmology has models that include dark matter and energy because they are astronomical observations and the inclusions make the models match the observed universe.

I fail to see why you are drawing a meaningless distinction between astronomy and cosmology. If astronomers research the cosmos, they are cosmologists as well, whether they have that on the plague by their office door or not. If cosmologists practice astronomy, they are astronomers. All this hair-splitting makes me think you have no real issue with plasma cosmology, and are merely engaged in a semantic debate for your own amusement.

 

[Tubbythin]

If astronomy doesn't include experiment, it's not science. Bear that in mind.

Controlled observations are experiments.

You claim there is "evidence" that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is anecdotal evidence for it, sure, people tell stories about it, so what you said is factually correct. Can you show even a single experiment that demonstrates the existence of dark matter, or of dark energy? Experiment is fundamental to science. If you're not performing experiments, you're not doing science.

Sure, as an undergrad I measured the rotation curve of Andromeda. The result is one piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter.

I fail to see why you are drawing a meaningless distinction between astronomy and cosmology. If astronomers research the cosmos, they are cosmologists as well, whether they have that on the plague by their office door or not. If cosmologists practice astronomy, they are astronomers. All this hair-splitting makes me think you have no real issue with plasma cosmology, and are merely engaged in a semantic debate for your own amusement.

This is no different to saying there is no difference between an atomic and a nuclear physicist.

 

[Arthur Mann]

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

You keep bringing up "debye length" as if it's relevant, so I'll address it.

The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really.

I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven:

"In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."

 

[Arthur Mann]

Controlled observations are experiments.

Observations alone, controlled or capricious, are not experiments.

Sure, as an undergrad I measured the rotation curve of Andromeda. The result is one piece of evidence for the existence of dark matter.

I asked for experimental evidence, not mere observation and speculation. Rotation curves of galaxies do not provide even indirect evidence of "dark matter". We do not need to invoke "dark matter" to explain why galaxies do not obey gravity. They don't obey gravity because they are plasmas. Plasmas are dominated by electromagnetic forces.

This is no different to saying there is no difference between an atomic and a nuclear physicist.

It's very different. It's saying an astronomer who practices cosmology is also a cosmologist and vice versa. That's a very simple idea, and pretty much irrefutable, unless you start redefining those words in mid-sentence.

 

[Arthur Mann]

You really really don't get this whole burden of proof thing do you? It is the proponent of the model that has to show their model fits the data, not the detractors to show that it doesn't.

I said show me the math because you said Peratt's model predicts a much larger magnetic field for our galaxy than we observe. You're the one making this claim, not me, not Peratt, but you. Show me the math if you expect to convince me. Otherwise you're just wasting your time. I never claimed Peratt's model accurately predicted the nature of the galaxy's magnetic field, you claimed it does not, prove it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

If he said that then he's wrong.

He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster.

Please provide a direct quote.

Gladly:

If the dominant form of matter [he means plasmas, which he calls the dominant, fundamental state of matter] were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Neither mass distribution matches the results from the computer simulations.

The purported "mass distributions" are extrapolations of the so-called "standard model" of cosmology, which posits unobservable "dark matter" sprinkled liberally here and there to explain why the matter we can actually observe doesn't behave the way they expect. The reason it doesn't behave the way they expect is because they're using the wrong rules. Electromagnetic forces dominate, not gravity. These derived "mass distributions" would more appropriately be described as "mass delusions". It's no surprise that "mass distributions" based on an erroneous model and "unobservable" stuff don't accord with simulations based on real physical principles.

 

[tusenfem]

The "debye length" in this context is just the distance at which a plasma can conceal the current it's carrying by "shielding" or hiding behind a region around itself that has become rich with positive ions in response to the electric discharge in question. It's a localized phenomenon that doesn't really affect observation at extreme distances, like all astronomical observations really.

Wrong, the Debye length does not "shield current" it shows over which length a charge in a plasma still has an electrostatic effect. You can't even get your definitions correct.

I'll stress again that "debye length" is not relevant to the discussion at hand, but just to illustrate "debye length" has nothing to do with any limiting factors, either with charge separation over distances or transmission, of electric current, I'll quote Hannes Alfven:

Nice that you quote Alfvén. Too bad that you don't understand that these double layers that he is talking about are current carrying double layers, and can only exist by the grace of these currents. Then, because there is a driver, there can be a quasi-stable situation in which two sheets of opposite charge are separated by several tens of Debye lengths (which basically holds for strong double layers, whereas the size is significantly smaller for weak, e.g. magneto-acoustic double layers.