Something new under the sun

[ben m]

sol invictus and and ben m: do you think Alfvén, in the bit iantresman quoted, is right about the equivalence of treatment (B vs i), and the possible loss of some important aspects by using B instead of i?

This is where I keep tearing my hair out: space plasma physicists aren't ignoring anything. My colleagues who work on the WIND spacecraft have lots of data on the "lunar wake": there's an electric field behind the Moon due to the fact that moon casts a "shadow" in the Solar Wind, and this shadow is filled in more rapidly by electrons than by protons. They deal with non-equilibrium plasmas where the protons and electrons have different temperatures. They talk to tokamak experts for whom the currents are the most important parameters. The "plasma waves" they talk about are not disembodied magnetic fields: they're a coupled system of currents, fields, and densities/pressures. If these wave modes are the appropriate degrees of freedom, then it's fine to only talk about one marker of the waves---it's like talking about a pendulum's motion by describing its "amplitude". ("Amplitude? You forgot about momentum-space", says the pedant. No I didn't---if we're talking about a pendulum with an oscillation period, the momentum is in there.) Are these waves "appropriate" degrees of freedom? Generally, half of the history of physics has been describing complex systems as the sum of a bunch of wave modes---we're quite good at identifying the benefits and pitfalls of this approach, and plasma people talk a lot about which degrees of freedom to use where.

Nonetheless, the PC persecution-fantasy requires them to think that we're leaving something out. So they make stuff up. You're leaving out electric fields! (Not where they exist, we're not.) You're leaving out the particle properties! (Nope.) You're leaving out the currents! (Where do you think we got the fields from?) You're leaving out the charge on the Sun! (Because it isn't there.) You only think it isnt there because you ignore electric fields! (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

The PC argument you mention---"You should use my technique, your technique is ignoring several effects"---hasn't actually been advanced at all on this board, since BAC and Zeuzzz are busy convincing us that magnetic field lines don't really exist. The hypothetical argument would be more impressive if the arguers could actually show examples where (a) their effect is actually ignored, causing (b) the results to disagree with observations. I haven't seen anything to convince me.

 

[Ziggurat]

sol invictus and and ben m: do you think Alfvén, in the bit iantresman quoted, is right about the equivalence of treatment (B vs i), and the possible loss of some important aspects by using B instead of i?

He's correct that if you know B fully, then you know i fully as well, and vice versa (though if you only know one in a small patch, you don't necessarily have a clue about the other). It's also true that there's additional information not being captured (namely, the distinction between motion of positive and negative charge carriers), but it's not being captured by either B or i. The distinction between the two different charge carriers is conceptually easier to relate to i for most people, but that's not terribly significant.

 

[Belz...]

Thanks iantresman, sol invictus, and ben m, for responding so quickly!

It'd be great to hear from Belz..., Dancing David, Reality Check, Zeuzzz, and Ziggurat too (as well as, going back earlier, BeAChooser, and MattusMaximus).

What do you want an answer to from me ?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What do you want an answer to from me ?

They are in my post #1074:

Way back when the underlying cause(s) of electricity and magnetism were not known. Fast forward a century or two and today we know about electrons, ions, electron spins, orbitals, etc, etc, etc.

If you look at plasma processes in terms of what the electrons and ions (and neutral atoms/molecules too) are doing, how does a magnetic field arise (excluding externally imposed fields)? Given that moving charges create such fields, does the existence of such magnetic fields - in the solar wind say, or the Sun - automatically mean that there are currents (in terms of contemporary physics)?

Is there a quantum mechanics version of Maxwell's equations?

I'm quite interested in all folk who've been actively participating in this thread recently to reply to the these questions [...]

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks Dancing David and Ziggurat (and ben m and Ziggurat for the follow on answers).

Reality Check, Zeuzzz - are you still with us? I'd really like to hear from you Zeuzzz (and BeAChooser too, if he/she is still with us) ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

He's correct that if you know B fully, then you know i fully as well, and vice versa (though if you only know one in a small patch, you don't necessarily have a clue about the other). It's also true that there's additional information not being captured (namely, the distinction between motion of positive and negative charge carriers), but it's not being captured by either B or i. The distinction between the two different charge carriers is conceptually easier to relate to i for most people, but that's not terribly significant.

Thanks; and thanks too to ben m.

It would seem that the example ben m gave (the "lunar wake": there's an electric field behind the Moon due to the fact that moon casts a "shadow" in the Solar Wind, and this shadow is filled in more rapidly by electrons than by protons) is one of those circumstances where the distinction between the different charge carriers is significant, in that models with electrons and protons can explain the data from WIND, and (I guess) much better than models in which the charge carriers are the same mass.

Here's something else that's important, I guess, for astronomers: the mechanisms by which light (and x-rays and radio waves, etc) is given off by either electrons or ions, in a plasma somewhere out there in the universe. From what's been said so far (though I'd really, really like to hear from Zeuzzz), classical plasma physics is silent about how plasmas shine brightly (or are dark because they block light). Am I right?

ETA: BeAChooser, iantresman, and Zeuzzz: to what extent do Alfvén, Birkeland, Bruce, Carlqvist, Fälthammar, Juergens, Langmuir, Peratt, Scott, Talbott, Thornhill and all the others you have mentioned include how light gets given off by plasmas, in their works? Specifically, for BeAChooser and Zeuzzz: in the Peratt papers on galaxy rotations being due to cosmic Birkeland currents, what did he say about how these currents would light up the plasmas?

 

[sol invictus]

I'll have a look at the rest tomorrow.

Well, Zuezzz?

By writing down an explicit solution we've demonstrated conclusively (contrary to your assertions) that reconnection can happen in a way consistent with Maxwell's equations, and that that process changes the energy density near the reconnection point. (And when this happens in a plasma, I gave a simple argument showing that the energy released will be large due to the high conductivity.)

We've linked to several sophisticated and modern numerical simulations in which Maxwell's equations in plasma were solved, and when the solution is plotted you see that reconnection occurs and lots of energy is released.

We've linked to many papers in which experimenters have measured the magnetic fields in real plasmas, and then plotted the results of their measurements, and again one sees that reconnection occurs in the same way and lots of energy is released.

So - are you going to admit you and BAC were totally wrong, yet again? Or are you going to run away and hide?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thankyou, i will have a look at this when i have the time. I'll be honest, I wasn't even aware of this relatively new area of Gerrits work until earlier today, but it seems interesting and I'll have a look at it over the next few days.




Seems like the issue is far from resolved. We'll just have to wait and see

Zeuzzz, I know you've been very busy posting here these last few days, but I am interested in your take on this, especially as it seems such a clear case of Verschuur goofing up, and in a pretty extreme way ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hi DeiRenDopa. I did wonder where you had gone, and so while your here, may i ask what are the puroposes of this study? why are you conducting it? just curious.

Sorry, I read this, but forgot to answer ...

The purposes are purely personal - I'm curious to understand where the apparent disconnect is, between you, BeAChooser, and (to some extent) iantresman (robinson very kindly and very candidly laid out his perspective) and just about everyone else who's participated in the recent JREF forum threads on things Plasma Cosmology/Plasma Universe/Electric Sun/Electric Universe - is there some context in which it all makes sense?

Thanks partly to you, I've found that the discussion here closely resembles similar discussions in many forums - people who write like you or BeAChooser (iantresman has his own style, and keeps his own handle, everywhere, it seems) can be found all over; almost always there are people like sol invictus who question, dispute, challenge, rebut, ... and before too long scream, yell, shout, and generally get very annoyed (with, it must be said, much screaming, yelling and shouting by PC/PU/EU/ES people too) ... and often this goes on for page after page after page.

Why?

And is there a way to identify the central issues that lead to the endless pages?

And if there is, is there a way to focus on those, and so reach at least a principled "agree to disagree" interim conclusion?

 

[iantresman]

ETA: BeAChooser, iantresman, and Zeuzzz: to what extent do Alfvén, Birkeland, Bruce, Carlqvist, Fälthammar, Juergens, Langmuir, Peratt, Scott, Talbott, Thornhill and all the others you have mentioned include how light gets given off by plasmas, in their works? Specifically, for BeAChooser and Zeuzzz: in the Peratt papers on galaxy rotations being due to cosmic Birkeland currents, what did he say about how these currents would light up the plasmas?

.
Anthony Peratt covers this in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, where he notes that "Plasmas are prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation", and describes how plasmas produce gamma rays and x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, submillimeter and microwave, and radio waves. He then devotes entire chapters to synchrotron radiation because it is very characteristic of pasmas, and the transport of cosmic radiation.

Peratt also covers "Radiation Characteristics of the Plasma State", and, "Synchrotron Radiation" in his paper "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF), which makes for a good general overview.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

.
Anthony Peratt covers this in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, where he notes that "Plasmas are prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation", and describes how plasmas produce gamma rays and x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, submillimeter and microwave, and radio waves. He then devotes entire chapters to synchrotron radiation because it is very characteristic of pasmas, and the transport of cosmic radiation.

Peratt also covers "Radiation Characteristics of the Plasma State", and, "Synchrotron Radiation" in his paper "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF), which makes for a good general overview.

Thanks iantresman.

What about the others (Alfvén, Birkeland, Bruce, Carlqvist, Fälthammar, Juergens, Langmuir, Scott, Talbott, Thornhill, for example)?

What other mechanisms does Peratt cover, in plasmas, leading to them giving off light (other than synchrotron)?

And what about mechanisms that make plasmas dark (absorption)?

And to the topic of several hundred posts, what does Peratt have to say about magnetic reconnection in plasmas as a way they can give off light or other electromagnetic radiation?

 

[sol invictus]

Thanks partly to you, I've found that the discussion here closely resembles similar discussions in many forums - people who write like you or BeAChooser (iantresman has his own style, and keeps his own handle, everywhere, it seems) can be found all over; almost always there are people like sol invictus who question, dispute, challenge, rebut, ... and before too long scream, yell, shout, and generally get very annoyed (with, it must be said, much screaming, yelling and shouting by PC/PU/EU/ES people too) ... and often this goes on for page after page after page.

Why?

And is there a way to identify the central issues that lead to the endless pages?

The debate here is in many ways reminiscent of a creationism versus evolution debate (see for example the gargantuan "annoying creationists" thread on this forum), or the 9/11 wacko debates.

Several of us here are experts and/or professional physicists. I am, and (based on their posts) I'm almost positive ben_m and Zig are as well. I find it extremely aggravating when someone that manifestly doesn't understand what they are talking about starts spreading misinformation about a subject I know and love. If it's a question of a well-intentioned but misinformed statement or two, that's fine, but this is on another level entirely. These posters make false statements confidently, use all sorts of polemical techniques (avoidance, shifting goal posts, vagueness on details) to avoid being pinned down, and in general sow as much doubt and confusion as they possibly can. They are attacking (in a broad sense) and misrepresenting the work I and my colleagues do for a living, and it's annoying, and it might confuse non-experts.

It reminds me very much of the creationist debate, because in both cases you have people who have an irrational faith in something who defend it by trying to attack mainstream science (evolution, in that case). These people never (in my experience) actually understand evolution very well, so rather than engaging it on something which might actually be a weak point (and therefore interesting to discuss) they go after aspects which seem strange or improbable to them. They harp endlessly on specific words and phrases, generally ones which are used differently in scientific discourse than they are colloquially. They point out individual scientists who go against the mainstream, as if the opinion of one person had equal weight compared to the opinions of thousands of others on the other side, and try to make it seem as though there is an actual debate among experts where there is not. And they usually don't have the intelligence, background, or will to understand the arguments on the other side, so they tend to simply ignore them. All of these aspects are on display in this thread.

I see both of these as part of the same general trend of anti-scientific nonsense, the kind of "we can't be sure of anything and therefore we know nothing and there's no point in trying to find anything out" idiocy that you see in popular culture, and that Randi and his foundation are supposed to be combating.

 

[iantresman]

Thanks partly to you, I've found that the discussion here closely resembles similar discussions in many forums - people who write like you or BeAChooser (iantresman has his own style, and keeps his own handle, everywhere, it seems) can be found all over; almost always there are people like sol invictus who question, dispute, challenge, rebut, ... and before too long scream, yell, shout, and generally get very annoyed (with, it must be said, much screaming, yelling and shouting by PC/PU/EU/ES people too) ... and often this goes on for page after page after page.

.
Now that's a good question. Here's my two cents worth. I believe (ithis is personal opinion), that the differences are due to:

• Misunderstandings due to many factors:
  eg. different use of terminology, eg. "ionized gas" ~ "plasma", "reconnection" really meaning "re-orientation" rather than breaking and reconnecting field lines", over-generalization which I am guilty of, but which one tends to do under some circumstances
  .
• Different levels of knowledge/understanding:
  I suspect that many here know Standard Cosmology far better than myself (and others). But I think this works both ways. I think ben m mentioned his frustration at that some plasma proponents claiming that some astrophysicists don't know their stuff. I think there is no doubt that he knows people who do... but then I know people who don't, so it doesn't help when we overgeneralize that all/none understand certain things.
  .
• Bias:
  Despite the agnosticism of science, and the impartiality of the scientific method, us human beings are very good a taking a limited set of facts, and pre-judging new ideas (literally, prejudice). Of course we both assess ideas within the framework we are most familiar, and often forget which ideas we know are factually, theoretic, or just for which there is an abundance of evidence. This brings us to paradigm shifts; By definition, Plasma Cosmology is untenable in Standard Cosmology: they contradict each other and are mutually exclusive.
  .
• Reaction to new ideas:
  Some people are better at looking at new idea than others. Some consider new ideas to be an "attack" on current ideas, and must be defended against. Others are more open, as they tend to question, rather than react. While I understand that I am not an expert, and can be quite naive in my discussions, there are many non-experts here who deserve the change to enquire. But a pseudoskeptical response is not constructive.
  .
• Language:
  I think that some contributors' use of language on the forum is non-constructive, and evident from numerous personal remarks. There is no doubt that I have made comments that have been perceived to be misleading. This does not mean that I am trying to be misleading. Differentiating the comments from the contributor shouldn't be difficult, especially for scientists.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I read this, but forgot to answer ...

The purposes are purely personal - I'm curious to understand where the apparent disconnect is, between you, BeAChooser, and (to some extent) iantresman (robinson very kindly and very candidly laid out his perspective) and just about everyone else who's participated in the recent JREF forum threads on things Plasma Cosmology/Plasma Universe/Electric Sun/Electric Universe - is there some context in which it all makes sense?

Thanks partly to you, I've found that the discussion here closely resembles similar discussions in many forums - people who write like you or BeAChooser (iantresman has his own style, and keeps his own handle, everywhere, it seems) can be found all over; almost always there are people like sol invictus who question, dispute, challenge, rebut, ... and before too long scream, yell, shout, and generally get very annoyed (with, it must be said, much screaming, yelling and shouting by PC/PU/EU/ES people too) ... and often this goes on for page after page after page.

Why?

And is there a way to identify the central issues that lead to the endless pages?

And if there is, is there a way to focus on those, and so reach at least a principled "agree to disagree" interim conclusion?

So far from what i have read here
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/26365-more-arp-et-al-24.html

it seems that some discussions can be very reasonable and well thought out, I have only read about five pages however.

I think that there are many different issues that lead to a lack of discussion on both sides. If you wish to discuss that, it would make a good thread, this is a very common issue on this forum, in many areas.

 

[iantresman]

What other mechanisms does Peratt cover, in plasmas, leading to them giving off light (other than synchrotron)?

And what about mechanisms that make plasmas dark (absorption)?

.
Also good questions. But as sol invictus has pointed out, while some people here are "professional physicists", people like myself are not.

But I have a couple of degrees, and can read a paper, and will respectfully refer you to Peratt's peer-reviewed paper, who can explain plasmas far more accurately than I can. See: "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF).

Peratt, Alfvén, Langmuir, and other pioneers of the Plasma Universe, were professional physicists, and have a far better understanding of the Plasma Universe than I ever will.

 

[sol invictus]

Misunderstandings due to many factors:
"reconnection" really meaning "re-orientation" rather than breaking and reconnecting field lines"

Magnetic reconnection has a clear and unambiguous meaning, and is explained in countless papers and websites. You can't hide behind a difference in definition, because there isn't one. And by the way, it does involve breaking and reconnecting field lines (in a certain specific sense).

You and your fellows either didn't understand what it meant and attacked something you didn't comprehend, or did understand and falsely attacked it. There is no other option.

Different levels of knowledge/understanding:
I suspect that many here know Standard Cosmology far better than myself (and others). But I think this works both ways.

You run a website on plasma cosmology, which had a whole section on galaxy formation and attacked the mainstream vuew, and yet you didn't know the meaning of "flat rotation curve". That's a basic, fundamental concept. As for working both ways, every astrophysicist knows at least the basics of plasma physics, and many are experts in it.

Bias:
By definition, Plasma Cosmology is untenable in Standard Cosmology: they contradict each other and are mutually exclusive.

That's is very unclear. Every single concrete idea we've managed to extract from you guys has turned out to be obviously false, and the rest is either too vague to address or coincides with standard cosmology.

In sum, no one here has a clue what "plasma cosmology" is. It's not even wrong.

Reaction to new ideas:
Some people are better at looking at new idea than others. Some consider new ideas to be an "attack" on current ideas, and must be defended against. Others are more open, as they tend to question, rather than react.

Every single day in the career of a physicist, some new idea comes along (sometimes your own, sometimes someone else's) and gets shot down, because it's wrong and doesn't work. Very, very rarely a new idea comes along and it's right. That's simply science at work.

Language:
I think that some contributors' use of language on the forum is non-constructive, and evident from numerous personal remarks. There is no doubt that I have made comments that have been perceived to be misleading. This does not mean that I am trying to be misleading. Differentiating the comments from the contributor shouldn't be difficult, especially for scientists.

Fair enough. You in particular have been reasonably civil, and have abstained from some of the more egregious and irritating polemics of the others.

However you are spreading misinformation and falsehoods on an educational forum and on the web, and as such you should expect to be attacked.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So far from what i have read here
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/26365-more-arp-et-al-24.html

it seems that some discussions can be very reasonable and well thought out, I have only read about five pages however.

I think that there are many different issues that lead to a lack of discussion on both sides. If you wish to discuss that, it would make a good thread, this is a very common issue on this forum, in many areas.

Dancing David, BAUT has several threads on PC/PU/ES/EU topics; the one you link to is about Arp et al.

I know - from reading threads on other sites - that the people (like Zeuzzz) who are vocal in their support of PC (etc) are also (generally) strong supporters of Halton Arp; however, I'm not sure the reverse is true, and (from what little I understand so far), there's no physics that connects PC (etc) with what Arp has written about. It's another thing I'm curious about, but it would take this thread in an entirely different direction ...

Why not link to the BAUT thread The Electric Sun, for example?

 

[iantresman]

Magnetic reconnection has a clear and unambiguous meaning, and is explained in countless papers and websites. You can't hide behind a difference in definition, because there isn't one. And by the way, it does involve breaking and reconnecting field lines (in a certain specific sense).

.
Yes, "Magnetic reconnection" has a specific meaning. (1) Is an open field line a "broken" field line? (2) Are open field lines consistent with Guass's Law?

That's is very unclear. Every single concrete idea we've managed to extract from you guys has turned out to be obviously false, and the rest is either too vague to address or coincides with standard cosmology.

.
Every idea is false. Over-generalization?

In sum, no one here has a clue what "plasma cosmology" is.

.
Zeuss does. BeAChooser does. I do. And it's described in a number of peer-reviewed papers:

• Peratt, A. L. "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" (1995) Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 3-11 (this one is online in full)
• Alfven, Hannes O. G, "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.

However you are spreading misinformation and falsehoods on an educational forum and on the web, and as such you should expect to be attacked.

.
I thought attacks went out with the Inquisition. When I receive constructive criticisms, I'll assess them, and act if necessary (as I have done before).

 

[sol invictus]

.
Yes, "Magnetic reconnection" has a specific meaning. (1) Is an open field line a "broken" field line? (2) Are open field lines consistent with Guass's Law?

You tell me. Watch this movie http://www.glue.umd.edu/~drake/movies/reconn_hall.avi . What words would you use to describe that? Would you say the lines are opening and/or breaking?

Sure looks like it to me, but nevertheless this is a solution to Maxwell's equations which does not violate Gauss' law for magnetism. The trap you guys fell into is using words rather than equations. Words are ambiguous.

Every idea is false. Over-generalization?

Yes, that's a false over-generalization. It's also not what I said.

Zeuss does. BeAChooser does. I do.

Really? So why can't any of you come up with one single concrete phenomenon which is explained differently by PC than by standard astro? One which isn't obviously false?

So far (off the top of my head) we've had electric sun, galactic rotation curves, magnetic reconnection, and Pioneer anomaly. What you guys said about every single one of those was exposed as totally absurd.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080324-mm-hot-corona.html "New Kink in Sun's Strange Corona By Clara Moskowitz, 24 March 2008, Here's a strange scenario: You move farther away from a fire, getting cooler and cooler, until suddenly you are burning up. That's essentially what happens in the sun: Its outer layer, the corona, is inexplicably hot. A new study may complicate things further by poking holes in a leading theory that aims to account for the puzzling phenomenon. Last year, astrophysicist Steve Tomczyk of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and his colleagues asserted that corkscrew-shaped Alfven waves were converting the motion energy of the sun's roiling material into heat. But the authors of the new study argue that the waves Tomczyk's team saw were not Alfven waves but kink waves. "Kink waves look like kinks in hair or rope," said University of Warwick astrophysicist Tom Van Doorsselaere, one of the researchers behind the new study. "Kink waves can't explain why the corona is so hot. They carry less energy with them."