Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Hi BeAChooser
Your postings reminded me of an outstanding question about Perratts plasma model of galaxy formation.
Have you or Zeuzzz found any evidence for the 200 billion galactic plasma filiaments that have to exist to power galaxies?
I would especially be interested in the ones within our Local Group, e.g. the 2 (or more?) that must be associated with the Andromeda Galaxy.
 
Reality Check said:
As you can see a plasma is not ANY ionized gas.
Click to expand...

Actually, you've misinterpreted what you quoted. Ionized gas is a plasma. Whether a given plasma will interact with something some distance away is another matter altogether. That has nothing to do with whether the material is a plasma. Even if it doesn't interact and is shielded from that other body, it's still a plasma.
 
BeAChooser said:
We actually see the sun because of the light generated by it.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's what you THINK you see.

In reality, it's your mind projected from your brain interpreting data from your optic nerve transmitting an impulse from the retina reacting to a photon we THINK is emitted by the sun. How is that direct, really ?

We all have to rely on assumptions about reality.

The same cannot be said for dark matter.
Click to expand...

Indirect observation is as good as direct observation. Otherwise science wouldn't exist.

We have NOT seen it.
Click to expand...

And you only believe what you see, right ? Ghosts, UFOs, bigfeet, nessie, etc. ?

We don't know what it is.
Click to expand...

True. How does this make it non-existent ?

But perhaps your interpretation is flawed.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but we're still waiting for an alternative explanation that doesn't equate to "god did it".
 
BeAChooser said:
We actually see the sun because of the light generated by it. The same cannot be said for dark matter. We have NOT seen it. We don't know what it is. Even after decades and decades and decades. You only INTERPRET the motions you SEE as being the result of dark matter. But perhaps your interpretation is flawed. Perhaps you're holding the trunk and calling it a tree when in fact it's an elephant.
Click to expand...
BAC, and any other lurker interested:

Skwinty has made several similar points in this thread; why not come on over and join the discussion?
 
Belz... said:
Indirect observation is as good as direct observation. Otherwise science wouldn't exist
Click to expand...

There is no argument with this concept, however there is a difference between direct and indirect in astronomy.

Binary stars can either be distinguished optically (visual binaries) or by indirect techniques, such as spectroscopy.

Another example would be that you are only indirectly aware of me through this forum and cannot claim to have directly observed me.

At the end of the day, I think that its the interpretation of words that cause the problem rather than the interpretation of scientific fact.
 
BeAChooser said:
Actually, you've misinterpreted what you quoted. Ionized gas is a plasma. Whether a given plasma will interact with something some distance away is another matter altogether. That has nothing to do with whether the material is a plasma. Even if it doesn't interact and is shielded from that other body, it's still a plasma.
Click to expand...
So you think that a plasma is any ionized gas? What about an ionized gas with an degree of ionization of 0.00001%? What about 0.000000001%?

But you are just wrong. Ionized gas can be plasma. Not all ionized gas is plasma.
 
If it isn't considered a plasma, then it isn't a plasma. That is how science works. If the majority believes it isn't plasma, then it can't be a plasma. Wikiality at work.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
OK ...

And for the gas/plasma in question (that which pervades rich clusters of galaxies), what - specifically and quantitatively - are the differences in those properties (gas vs plasma), as they pertain to astronomical observations of those clusters, or potential observations of those clusters?
Click to expand...
Bump.

I added some bold - may I and other readers of this thread - expect an answer from you BAC? If so, when?
 
robinson said:
If it isn't considered a plasma, then it isn't a plasma. That is how science works. If the majority believes it isn't plasma, then it can't be a plasma. Wikiality at work.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not how it works, if it fits the definition of a plasma then it is a plasma, regardless of what you (or any perceived majority) consider or call it. Plasma is just a highly ionized gas (which is its definition). Whether it is in a plasma TV, used in the plasma etching to make the integrated circuits you use every day (even now in seeing this) or in astrophysical plasmas. If it is a highly ionized gas, then it is by definition, a plasma.
 
Last edited:
The definition is decided upon by consensus. That is the very definition of wikiality. Like when Pluto stopped being a planet. because the definition of a planet was changed. By consensus. By some ruling body of scientist.

So Pluto is no longer a planet. By definition.

It is the same thing with a meter, a kilo, or any other made up term/definition. It is what it is, because we say it is.
 
Much like Plasma Cosmology itself. You can't say it is woo/nonsense until you define what it is. If you define it as woo/nonsense, then by definition, it is woo.

If enough people agree it is woo, as defined by them, then it has to be woo. By definition.
 
Reality Check said:
Hi BeAChooser
Your postings reminded me of an outstanding question about Perratts plasma model of galaxy formation.
Have you or Zeuzzz found any evidence for the 200 billion galactic plasma filiaments that have to exist to power galaxies?
I would especially be interested in the ones within our Local Group, e.g. the 2 (or more?) that must be associated with the Andromeda Galaxy.
Click to expand...



Nearly all galaxies have filaments that contain various objects aligned perpendicular to their plane. In standard models this is not predicted, and is still considered a mystery, unless of course you invoke the usual dark matter to explain them, along with every other large scale anomaly in the universe. Dark matter seems very handy in this respect. In Peratts dynamic plasma model of galaxy formation this is exactly what you would expect. You want evidence for this perpendicular to their plane alignment on the andromeda galaxy?


http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571
Most of the small satellite galaxies around the Milky Way's near-twin, Andromeda, are lined up in a single plane that slices through Andromeda's spiral disc, a new study reveals.

The alignment suggests the satellites are either floating on a river of dark matter or are the remains of a larger galaxy Andromeda has already cannibalised.

Astronomers have known for about 25 years that the Milky Way's dozen or so satellites line up along two planes that lie perpendicular to its disc. But how the structures formed is still not clear. [...]

The researchers plotted the positions of Andromeda's 14 satellites using images from the Hubble Space Telescope and found that nine of them lay in a relatively thin plane about 52,000 light years wide. "It's unlikely such a plane would arise by chance," Grebel says. The satellites in the plane also shared similar characteristics – most were faint, low in mass, and had already stopped forming stars. [....]

The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter [:rolleyes:]. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic "web" along which galaxies flow.

Distant observations show evidence for the filaments, since maps of the universe's large-scale structure reveal thousands of galaxies lining up along intersecting streams. But such filaments have not yet been detected near the Milky Way. "One question is, could we see such filaments in our immediate surroundings?" says Grebel. She says two fairly significant masses do lie on either side of Andromeda, with the spiral galaxy M33 just 720,000 light years away and a group of about three dozen galaxies called M81 about 11 million light years away. If a dark matter filament connects all three, Grebel says future observations may show Andromeda's satellites moving along the filament.
Click to expand...



So, now the dark matter filaments said to be causing these enigmatic observations are invisible! If they are largely invisible, how can anyone disprove that these dark matter filaments are there? Yet another new mysterious property of dark matter.

dn8571-1_675.jpg



(M31 is the other name of andromeda)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AJ....131.1405K
The highly anisotropic distribution and apparent alignment of the Galactic satellites in polar great planes begs the question of how common such distributions are. The satellite system of M31 is the only nearby system for which we currently have sufficiently accurate distances to study the three-dimensional satellite distribution. We present the spatial distribution of the 15 currently known M31 companions in a coordinate system centered on M31 and aligned with its disk. [....]
Click to expand...



One of the larger ojects alligned along this plane is clearly visible under the galaxy in this picture, although too see all the other objects that have been detected lined along this plane perpendicular to galaxy you would need a much higher resolution;

andromeda.jpg



Quite a paradox for mainstream theories of galaxy formation dont you think? Of course, you could add various extra theories to the existing ones to account for these filaments, such as the mysterious new "dark matter filaments" theories, but parsimony should mean that any theory that requires many completely separate models to account for observations is the less powerful than one theory that addresses all observations in one model.

I am not saying that Peratts model does not have problems, the relationship between stars and thier local environment to account for this motion still needs to be addressed fully, and so does the plasma density required at larger radii in the galaxies to fit with his model, but his model does have the distinct advantage of explaining observations such as these, and is far better at creating the shape and structure of galaxies than purely Newtonian theories. I think that a mixture of his model and normal theories would be a good idea, with Peratts model being applied to galaxies in their early stages of formation where the plasma density is much higher, and also his initial formation idea that does not require the mass to be ejected out of a Big Bang certainly holds merit.

Found a few more publications on his model, for those not already familiar with it;

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe
Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992 (152KB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, APSS 242, 1997 (3.3MB)
Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, APSS 256, 1998 (2.1MB)
 
Last edited:
I thought they discovered the filaments were plasma? I posted a link about this in another thread.
 
robinson said:
I thought they discovered the filaments were plasma? I posted a link about this in another thread.
Click to expand...
What "filaments"?

Z's post is about M31 and its satellite galaxies*.

That post contains no mention of any (observed) filaments associated with M31.

It certainly makes no mention of any plasma filaments!

In fact, Z's post seems to make a very good case that Peratt's model is quite inconsistent with the observations of the location of M31's satellite galaxies! :eye-poppi

You see, these satellites seem to be in a plane ... and I'm sure you know that, in Peratt's model, a spiral galaxy is pierced through its nucleus with a twisted pair of (essentially linear) filaments.

Further, in Peratt's model, the filaments are far, far narrower than "52,000 light years" (~< 0.5 kpc, IIRC) - you did read Peratt's paper(s), didn't you?

In other words, Z has, once again, shown his appalling lack of understanding of even the PC models he is so enthusiastic about filling his posts with.

* the minor mentions of other stuff is irrelevant to the point of his post
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Huh?

I thought this thread was about Plasma Cosmology ... am I mistaken?

If not, then can you please provide a consistent, quantitative explanation for the observations (of the dwarf galaxies) that is built from first (plasma physics) principles? Preferably one that is contained in a paper (or three) published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal ...
Click to expand...
Bump.

May I - and other readers of this thread - expect an answer from you BAC?

If so, when?
 
Zeuzzz said:
I think that a mixture of his model and normal theories would be a good idea, with Peratts model being applied to galaxies in their early stages of formation where the plasma density is much higher, and also his initial formation idea that does not require the mass to be ejected out of a Big Bang certainly holds merit.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you also think Maxwell's equations in vacuum are applicable to plasma...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Nearly all galaxies have filaments that contain various objects aligned perpendicular to their plane. In standard models this is not predicted, and is still considered a mystery, unless of course you invoke the usual dark matter to explain them, along with every other large scale anomaly in the universe. Dark matter seems very handy in this respect. In Peratts dynamic plasma model of galaxy formation this is exactly what you would expect. You want evidence for this perpendicular to their plane alignment on the andromeda galaxy?
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with the galactic plasma filaments in Peratts model as you know.

Zeuzzz said:
I am not saying that Peratts model does not have problems, the relationship between stars and thier local environment to account for this motion still needs to be addressed fully, and so does the plasma density required at larger radii in the galaxies to fit with his model, but his model does have the distinct advantage of explaining observations such as these, and is far better at creating the shape and structure of galaxies than purely Newtonian theories. I think that a mixture of his model and normal theories would be a good idea, with Peratts model being applied to galaxies in their early stages of formation where the plasma density is much higher, and also his initial formation idea that does not require the mass to be ejected out of a Big Bang certainly holds merit.
Click to expand...
The last sentence is nothing to do with his galactic formation model or any other model of galaxy formation.

So I take it now that you think that Peratts model creates the galaxies initially, the galactic plasma filaments vanish at some point and then dark matter magically appears and explains the rotation curves that we see?
This leaves many questions:
  • Where is this stated in his papers?
  • What happens to the galactic plasma filaments? If they are still around then where are they? If they dissipate then what forms them again?
  • What keeps dark matter away from young galaxies? Remember that if you have dark matter then you do not need his model.
  • What proportion of of the 100 billion galaxies in the universe are "young" and have galactic plasma filaments (and once again why do we not see the filaments)?
And a not quite unrelated question: In the various "plasma cosmology" steady state universes I would expect that young galaxies can appear anywhere. My impression though is that they are observed to be at large distances from us, e.g. there seem to be no newly formed galaxies in the Local Group. Is this correct?
 
The Man said:
Plasma is just a highly ionized gas
Click to expand...

If that's true, why do so many scientific papers refer to "slightly ionized plasmas"?

Perhaps this is the reason?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-plasma.htm "Even if only 1% of the atoms have lost their electrons, a gas will display plasma-like behavior."

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/te...d=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&ABC=D&page=detail "A plasma with a low degree of ionization is usually a cold plasma, but it is possible to have a plasma with a low degree of ionization (i.e. mostly neutral gas) where the ions present are highly ionized (few electrons left on each actual ion)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_ionization "when electricity passes through a novelty plasma ball, perhaps 1% of the gases are ionized (sometimes referred to as partially ionized). ... snip ... A gas may begin to behave like plasma when the degree of ionization is as little as 0.01%"
 
BeAChooser said:
If that's true, why do so many scientific papers refer to "slightly ionized plasmas"?

Perhaps this is the reason?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-plasma.htm "Even if only 1% of the atoms have lost their electrons, a gas will display plasma-like behavior."

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/te...d=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&ABC=D&page=detail "A plasma with a low degree of ionization is usually a cold plasma, but it is possible to have a plasma with a low degree of ionization (i.e. mostly neutral gas) where the ions present are highly ionized (few electrons left on each actual ion)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_ionization "when electricity passes through a novelty plasma ball, perhaps 1% of the gases are ionized (sometimes referred to as partially ionized). ... snip ... A gas may begin to behave like plasma when the degree of ionization is as little as 0.01%"
Click to expand...
That is why I asked you whether an ionized gas with a degree of ionization is 0.0001% is a plasma. Is it?

A definition of plasma is an ionized gas that has the properties of plasma. There are ionized gasses that do not have the properties of plasma and so are not plasma.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
What "filaments"?
Click to expand...


The ones thought to be "dark matter filaments" by the people who discovered this allignment.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571
Dark matter filaments

The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic "web" along which galaxies flow.

Distant observations show evidence for the filaments, since maps of the universe's large-scale structure reveal thousands of galaxies lining up along intersecting streams. But such filaments have not yet been detected near the Milky Way. "One question is, could we see such filaments in our immediate surroundings?" says Grebel.

She says two fairly significant masses do lie on either side of Andromeda, with the spiral galaxy M33 just 720,000 light years away and a group of about three dozen galaxies called M81 about 11 million light years away. If a dark matter filament connects all three, Grebel says future observations may show Andromeda's satellites moving along the filament.
Click to expand...

Z's post is about M31 and its satellite galaxies*.

That post contains no mention of any (observed) filaments associated with M31.
Click to expand...


So do you think that these objects all lined up along this plane are just coincidence? magic?

Even the people who discovered this have the sense to know that there must be a cause for this allignment, so they suggest a "dark matter filament", but theres no need for it to be made out of something that probably doesn't exist, its likely a plasma filament in dark glow mode, probably in the townsend regime. Paschen’s law states that the breakdown voltage for a plasma to move from dark mode into glow mode depends on the product of the pressure and the distance the current travels, and in this case the pressure would be small for interstellar/galactic space, and the distance large. The difference between the two explantions is that one type of filament has been tested in controlled plasma experiments in the lab to determine its properties under various conditions, and the other explanation, well, would anyone care to explain what a dark matter filament is? what properties does it have?

It certainly makes no mention of any plasma filaments!
Click to expand...


No, it doesn't. They think that dark matter filaments will do the job. Well, PC preferes to ground their models to some form of reality.

You see, these satellites seem to be in a plane ... and I'm sure you know that, in Peratt's model, a spiral galaxy is pierced through its nucleus with a twisted pair of (essentially linear) filaments.
Click to expand...


So I suppose that you agree with the Dark matter filaments theory, as opposed to plasma filaments? Care to elaborate on the properties of Dark matter filaments? Lets start with something easy; how do they sustain their filamentary structure?

This observation would be quite easy to explain with Peratts model if the galaxy was rotating slowly through space around a line travelling from nucleus to outer arm (in the plane of the galaxy) at a very low speed, even just enough for one or two rotations during its entire lifetime (which I would think would be undetectable from our intruments?), the filaments would disperse the satelites in the plane it sweeps out.

Further, in Peratt's model, the filaments are far, far narrower than "52,000 light years" (~< 0.5 kpc, IIRC) - you did read Peratt's paper(s), didn't you?
Click to expand...


And why would you assume that the sateilites would be dispersed over the entire 30 kpc? I would have certainly thought that they would be alligned along the centre of the filament, where the current density is greatest, in the central 2-3kpc or so, so in a plane of 1.6 KPC would be about right. When you look at the infared pictures of andromeda it makes it much easier to see the structure of the interacting filaments that form the spiral structure.

800px-Andromeda_galaxy_Ssc2005-20a1_halfsize.jpg


Galaxies just make so much more sense when viewed as two/three interacting plasma filaments instead of one central mass which happens to have two supported filaments extending from it.

In other words, Z has, once again, shown his appalling lack of understanding of even the PC models he is so enthusiastic about filling his posts with.
Click to expand...


Once agiain DRD has shown appalling lack of critical thinking and how the observations may be explained. Unless there has been a recent breakthrough in the theory she takes preference with (these allignments caused by dark matter filaments), and the properties of dark matter filaments have been discovered, and are now well understood?
 
Reality Check said:
Nothing to do with the galactic plasma filaments in Peratts model as you know.
Click to expand...


So you think that these allignments are juts coincidence? or do you think that there is some type of filament accountable for their position? (like the people who discovered the allignment did)


So I take it now that you think that Peratts model creates the galaxies initially, the galactic plasma filaments vanish at some point and then dark matter magically appears and explains the rotation curves that we see?
Click to expand...


I was thinking more along the lines of when the Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models developed by gallo et al, which although not mentioned in Peratts work, I think are the most compatible with it than any of the other usual galaxy models. Mainly due to the fact they eliminate the need for the huge invisible halos of dark matter required in most, and use a similar idea of a different mass distribution to explain the shape of the galaxies.

Plasma effects are certainly active in the formation and evolution of galaxies from the original hot plasma (Refs.[65]-[67]). However, for mature spiral galaxies, the free plasma density has dropped to levels sufficiently low that plasma does not affect the predominantly gravitational galactic dynamics. [....]

By contrast, our results indicate no massive peripheral spherical halos of mysterious Dark Matter and no deviations from simple gravity. Our total galactic mass determinations are also in reasonable agreement with data. The controversy is summarized as follows.
We believe there is ordinary baryonic matter within the galactic disc distributed more towards the galactic periphery which is cooler with lower opacity/emissivity (and therefore darker). Others believe there are massive peripheral spherical halos of mysterious Dark Matter surrounding the galaxies.

10 Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Louis Marmet, Ken Nicholson and Michel Mizony whose intuition and computational techniques convinced us that galactic rotation could be described by suitable mass distributions of ordinary baryonic matter within galactic disks. Anthony Peratt originally sparked our interest with his plasma dynamical calculations re the formation and evolution of galaxies. Ari Brynjolfsson has energetically supported our efforts.
Click to expand...


In Peratts model he addresses many galaxy transitions, from radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert spiral galaxies, and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies
to normal and barred galaxies, I suspect that the bulge model could follow on in time from this as the plasma density decreases and the plasma effects become less dominant. Its essentially the same idea, using a difference mass distribution to expalin galactic rotation curves, although a model would have to be created for the transition from Peratts model to form the disk.

This leaves many questions:
  • Where is this stated in his papers?
Click to expand...



  • Its not, its my opinion. Peratt might hate the idea, I dont have a clue.

    [*]What keeps dark matter away from young galaxies? Remember that if you have dark matter then you do not need his model.
    Click to expand...


    I dont mean any theories that use dark matter.

    My impression though is that they are observed to be at large distances from us, e.g. there seem to be no newly formed galaxies in the Local Group. Is this correct?
    Click to expand...


    Maybe in the local group, but 35 galaxies is hardly a good number to get good statistics for that statement. Do other clusters show this too? Depends on what you mean aswell, newly formed for standard galaxy models, or in Peratts?
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
So you think that these allignments are juts coincidence? or do you think that there is some type of filament accountable for their position? (like the people who discovered the allignment did)
Click to expand...
I have no opinion. I just know as anyone who knows Paratt's work that they are not the galactic plasma filaments that his model predicts.

Zeuzzz said:
I was thinking more along the lines of when the Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models developed by gallo et al, which although not mentioned in Peratts work, I think are the most compatible with it than any of the other usual galaxy models. Mainly due to the fact they eliminate the need for the huge invisible halos of dark matter required in most, and use a similar idea of a different mass distribution to explain the shape of the galaxies.
Click to expand...
Is this another theory to add to the "plasma cosmology" list?
Perhaps a citation?

ETA: Is it Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models by C. F. Gallo, James Q. Feng. This preprint looks like the first astrophysics paper by either author (or to be more exact the first 3 papers ever submitted by the authors, all in the last 4 months and all on the same subject). James Q. Feng lists his credentials on his home page which are impressive but are not in astrophysics.

Zeuzzz said:
Maybe in the local group, but 35 galaxies is hardly a good number to get good statistics for that statement. Do other clusters show this too? Depends on what you mean aswell, newly formed for standard galaxy models, or in Peratts?
Click to expand...
How about the local supercluster?
Newly formed as in any of the various galactic formation theories in "plasma cosmology". Pick a dozen or so and give the predictions.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
How about the local supercluster?
Newly formed as in any of the various galactic formation theories in "plasma cosmology". Pick a dozen or so and give the predictions.
Click to expand...


what excactly do you want prediction wise?

Radio galaxies/Double radio galaxies are thought to be the initial stage of galaxy formation. These can evolve into a couple of different types over time, depending on various parameters in the model, usually ending up as elliptical or spiral.

A good brief overview here;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/galaxy.Radio.html
Because the burst of intense radiation occurs when the two pinches are separated, the synchrotron light, focused in the direction of the acellerating electrons, is that of two intense fowardly-directed 'search lights': a double synchrotron radiation source.

When scaled to the dimensions of a galaxy, each pinch having a diameter of 35 kpc, 10 kpc thick, separated initially 80 kpc apart, the synchrotron radiated power is of the order of 1037 watts, that is, the power recorded from double radio galaxies.[...]

An example of two such swept up dusty plasmas colliding within the magnetic trap is shown below. The end result, several billion years later is a magnetic-field-free elliptical galaxy.

While the high-energy-density plasma experiment lasts but for a billionth of a second, as plasmas scale in size and parameter, the scaled plasma morphology for a galactic dimensioned interaction is about 10 billion years.

It should be noted that while the energy delivered to the pinch region is through a cylindrical or filamental current, the interaction region itself is that of two dusty plasmas, each 35 kpc in diameter and 10 kpc thick. After about 10 billion years, the morphology the interaction is that of a well-developed spiral galaxy.
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
If that's true, why do so many scientific papers refer to "slightly ionized plasmas"?

Perhaps this is the reason?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-plasma.htm "Even if only 1% of the atoms have lost their electrons, a gas will display plasma-like behavior."

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/te...d=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&ABC=D&page=detail "A plasma with a low degree of ionization is usually a cold plasma, but it is possible to have a plasma with a low degree of ionization (i.e. mostly neutral gas) where the ions present are highly ionized (few electrons left on each actual ion)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_ionization "when electricity passes through a novelty plasma ball, perhaps 1% of the gases are ionized (sometimes referred to as partially ionized). ... snip ... A gas may begin to behave like plasma when the degree of ionization is as little as 0.01%"
Click to expand...

It depends BAC, in the famous quote that Alfven made he is referring to the electrical repulsion of plasma interaction amongst it's parts over the purely mechanical collisions when he says 'treat as highly ionized'.

In some situation you will have the defintions of plasma met and in others you won't at 1% ionization.
 
Definition of a Plasma

robinson said:
What are those gases? And where do they occur?
Click to expand...

Okay, I checked out some books on my shelve to get a very nice definition of a plasma, I found that for this discussion, the paragraph in Baumjohann & Treumann, chapter 1 of Basic Space Plasma Physics was very nice ideed. (and I am sure this is going to bring a lot of discussion, which I will not participate in). It is astonishing enough how the discussion goes, without anyone so much as look at an introductory book and look up what the definition of a plasma is.

Plasma is mainly defined by COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR, that is something that may not be forgotten.

So okay, here we go

B&T said:
1.1 Definition of a Plasma

A plasma is a gas of charged particles, which consists of equal numbers of free positive and negative charge carriers. Having roughly the same number of charges with different sign in the samve volume element guarantees that the plasma behaves quasineutral in the stationary state. On average a plasma looks electrically neutral to the outside, sinde randomly distributed particle electric charge fields mutually cancel.

For a particle to be considered a free particle, its typical potential energy due to its nearest neighbour must be much smaller than its random kinetic (thermal) energy. Only then the particle's motion is practically free from the influence by other charged particles in its neighbourhood als long as no direct collisions take place.

Since the particles in a plasma have to overcome the coupling with their neighbours, they must have thermal energies above some electronvolts. Thus a typical plasma is a hot and highly ionized gas. While only a few natural plasmas, such as flames or lightning strokes, can be found near the Earth's surface, plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state.
Click to expand...

The authors then go on with the characteristics for a plasma, because with the above definition it is not finished yet, it needs to be quantified by the following criteria:

1. DeBye shielding.
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge q, which is placed in a "plasma" and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length λD.
B&T said:
In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, L, must be large compared to λD:
λD << L
otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.
Click to expand...

2. Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length.
B&T said:
Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius λD, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is (4/3)πneλD3. The term neλD3 is often called the plasma parameter, Λ, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:
Λ = neλD3 >> 1
[snip]
This mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to ne1/3, must be much smaller than its mean energy, kBTe
Click to expand...

3. Plasma Frequency
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e. the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. (Here we mean that all negatives move 1 meter to the left and all positives one meter to the right, to make it visible (although rediculous)). The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating COLLECTIVELY around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency
ωp2 = ne e2 / me ε0
B&T said:
Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, τn, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:
ωp τn >> 1
This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.
Click to expand...

For more info on plasma physics, I wrote a whole thread on Plasma Physics for Dummies on the BAUT forum (www bautforum com/general-science/63183-plasma-physics-dummies (dot) html, not allowed to post links yet). But going to a library, and not just googling and wikiing does wonders.
 
tusenfem said:
For more info on plasma physics, I wrote a whole thread on Plasma Physics for Dummies on the BAUT forum (www bautforum com/general-science/63183-plasma-physics-dummies (dot) html, not allowed to post links yet). But going to a library, and not just googling and wikiing does wonders.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input. The simplest explanation I found was that a plasma, by definition, conducts electricity. So if a partially ionized gas won't conduct, then it can't be considered plasma.

I also found, while reading science sites about this, that some people claim lightning, fire and fluorescent lights are not plasma.
 
Zeuzzz said:
The ones thought to be "dark matter filaments" by the people who discovered this allignment.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571
Click to expand...
Ah, stupid dumb words again ...

What is it robinson said, in a recent post (in another thread)? Something about semantics and refuges ...

In any case, it seems that you are trying to do some science by being a word chef: the NS article says "filament" and Peratt says "filament" and both are used in the context of galaxies, so toss them together (with or without a nice aceto balsamico) and bingo! :cool:

So do you think that these objects all lined up along this plane are just coincidence? magic?

Even the people who discovered this have the sense to know that there must be a cause for this allignment, so they suggest a "dark matter filament", but theres no need for it to be made out of something that probably doesn't exist, its likely a plasma filament in dark glow mode, probably in the townsend regime. Paschen’s law states that the breakdown voltage for a plasma to move from dark mode into glow mode depends on the product of the pressure and the distance the current travels, and in this case the pressure would be small for interstellar/galactic space, and the distance large. The difference between the two explantions is that one type of filament has been tested in controlled plasma experiments in the lab to determine its properties under various conditions, and the other explanation, well, would anyone care to explain what a dark matter filament is? what properties does it have?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, a word salad with ingredients that explode taste on the tongue!

Z, may I suggest that:

a) articles in New Scientist are not very good, as primary sources

b) science, and astrophysics in particular, requires rather more than word salad?

But since you've put forward this idea, and changed the subject once again, why not go the whole hog and explain how this works? You know, with numbers and equations and stuff like that.

No, it doesn't. They think that dark matter filaments will do the job. Well, PC preferes to ground their models to some form of reality.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

But wait! This 'a subset of M31's satellite galaxies are in a plane Peratt plasma filament' PC model is published where, exactly?

So I suppose that you agree with the Dark matter filaments theory, as opposed to plasma filaments? Care to elaborate on the properties of Dark matter filaments? Lets start with something easy; how do they sustain their filamentary structure?
Click to expand...
There are at least two excellent internet discussion fora where you could go and ask these questions, confident that they would receive thoughtful and helpful replies, PhysicsForums and BAUT. As you have blotted your coffee book in both, rather badly, you won't have the opportunity to go and ask questions there, but any other reader sufficiently interested can.

Of course, to answer these here, in a thread about Plasma Cosmology and whether it is woo or not would not be a good idea (but nice try, once again, at diverting attention away from your continued inability/refusal to answer questions about the PC ideas you yourself have posted).

This observation would be quite easy to explain with Peratts model if the galaxy was rotating slowly through space around a line travelling from nucleus to outer arm (in the plane of the galaxy) at a very low speed, even just enough for one or two rotations during its entire lifetime (which I would think would be undetectable from our intruments?), the filaments would disperse the satelites in the plane it sweeps out.
Click to expand...
Indeed it would ...

... if the only requirement for 'explain' were 'wave your hands' or 'concoct a word salad'.

Sadly (for you), the default approach in this part of the JREF forum ("Science", remember) is that of contemporary science.

Now, if you'd like to develop your idea, write it up, and get it published in a journal such as ApJ, ...

And why would you assume that the sateilites would be dispersed over the entire 30 kpc? I would have certainly thought that they would be alligned along the centre of the filament, where the current density is greatest, in the central 2-3kpc or so, so in a plane of 1.6 KPC would be about right. When you look at the infared pictures of andromeda it makes it much easier to see the structure of the interacting filaments that form the spiral structure.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Andromeda_galaxy_Ssc2005-20a1_halfsize.jpg/800px-Andromeda_galaxy_Ssc2005-20a1_halfsize.jpg[/qimg]

Galaxies just make so much more sense when viewed as two/three interacting plasma filaments instead of one central mass which happens to have two supported filaments extending from it.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Let's see now ... if I go to a local kindergarten with some nice piccies (IR of M31, or an artist's impression of M31 and its satellite galaxies, or ...) and ask where the horsie and the piggy are, can I use the results to present a theory of how horsies and piggies are what makes the structure of M31?

Reminds me of a Peanuts carton, where three are lying on their backs looking up at a cloudy sky ...

Meanwhile, back in the real universe, how about giving us some rough estimates of the density, magnetic field, and composition of these 'Peratt plasma filaments'?

And how about explaining why none are visible? After all, if they are plasma, of the kind Peratt proposed, then at least one of the following should be easily seen, right (this is an incomplete list)?

* x-ray emission (due to synchrotron, and/or bremsstrahlung, and/or just plain thermal processes)

* polarisation of the CMB, in the direction of the filaments

* absorption lines imposed on the spectra of background objects

* Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.

Once agiain DRD has shown appalling lack of critical thinking and how the observations may be explained. Unless there has been a recent breakthrough in the theory she takes preference with (these allignments caused by dark matter filaments), and the properties of dark matter filaments have been discovered, and are now well understood?
Click to expand...
Huh?

Oh right, I keep forgetting ... in PC, an acceptable form of logic is that of the false dichotomy; in this case

EITHER {Z's creative extension of Peratt filaments} OR {dark matter filaments, per the NS article}, and as {DM MUST BE WRONG!} THEREFORE PC MUST BE RIGHT!! :p
 
Zeuzzz, anyone that has ever seen a DM simulation knows that it forms long, thread-like structures as a result of gravitational collapse (typically gravity is the only interaction in those simulations). I don't know if that's related to the observations you posted, but like it or not "filamentary" structures on at least some scales are an immediate consequence of DM plus gravity.
 
Dancing David said:
In some situation you will have the defintions of plasma met and in others you won't at 1% ionization.
Click to expand...

And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma? :)
 
sol invictus said:
Zeuzzz, anyone that has ever seen a DM simulation knows that it forms long, thread-like structures as a result of gravitational collapse (typically gravity is the only interaction in those simulations).
Click to expand...

And EVERYWHERE we have looked, we've found electromagnetic effects on plasmas producing long, thread-like structures. Even rope like ones! Alfven predicted the universe would be filamentary at all scales. And he was right. Without calling on the gnome of DM even once. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
And EVERYWHERE we have looked, we've found electromagnetic effects on plasmas producing long, thread-like structures. Even rope like ones! Alfven predicted the universe would be filamentary at all scales. And he was right. Without calling on the gnome of DM even once. :D
Click to expand...
This is a joke, right?

BAC, EVERYWHERE the kindergarten class has looked, they've found horsies, and piggies and duckies and ... Even rope like ones!

According to Alfvén, how does the universe scale, as the characteristic size increases? Or, to be a bit more technical, what did Alfvén predict P(k) would be?

Now real plasma filaments have properties like magnetic field strengths, densities, compositions, temperatures, ... What did Alfvén predict the properties of these plasma filaments would be? And what have astronomers inferred these properties are, from observations?

[HINT: Alfvén's predictions are, almost universally, inconsistent with the observations ... except where his predictions were so general that they were unfalsifiable ...]
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Indeed.

In the case of rich (relaxed) clusters, do you have an explanation for the quantitative observations of the hot gas/plasma that does NOT involve CDM?

I mean a consistent explanation ...

[...]
Click to expand...
Bump.

May I - and other readers of this thread - expect an answer from you BAC?

If so, when?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, ... er, ...

In a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (PC) (yes, I'm shouting, in the (vain?) hope you will pay attention), what does Burbidge's (personal) article have to do with PC?

If you won't take the time and trouble (in this thread) to say what you think PC actually is, and if (as others have pointed out) every time you got close to saying what it is (in other threads) you changed your tune, went off at tangents, etc, then what is it that we can actually discuss?
..
The history is interesting ... but it tells us little about how well the actual observations match one theory or another, and surely this is the more important thing to examine?

Further, even if Burbidge (or some other author) has a paper convincingly showing that the space density of starlight, averaged over a large enough volume, is equivalent to a ~3K blackbody, so what?

Unless and until you explicitly tie such a thing to Plasma Cosmology, what's the point of discussing it (in this thread)?
.Huh? :confused:

I wasn't aware that anyone, in this thread, had put forward any reasons 'to "refute" plasma cosmology', much less ones that were based solely on 'Big Bang material' ... would you (or any other reader) be kind enough to point to posts which contain such reasons?
.Maybe; however, it had no connection to Plasma Cosmology, either explicit or implicit.Quite.

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

I seem to have missed that ...
I can't speak for anyone else, but ...

The reasons I ignored it were two: I was busy responding to other posts, and was going to get around to yours later; and your post seemed, to me, to have nothing to do with the explicit topic of this thread ... which is, in case you missed it, Plasma Cosmology.

Oh, and I should add that I find it rather odd that you say you're busy, yet have time to write posts that clearly required some time spent on collecting source material ... all the while ignoring all the other 'open items' that have followed from your earlier posts, both in this thread and (many) others.
Huh? :confused:

I wasn't aware that you had a 'position' at all! At least, not one that concerns a concisely described alternative cosmology called 'Plasma Cosmology', much less any such based on standard scientific methods and approaches.

For the record, again, I think your 'occasional daily comment' have been almost entirely seagull woo spam.
Bye!

And good luck with those physics exams ...
Click to expand...
Bump.

This is post #88, the third on this list of DRD posts that contain questions directly relevant to whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not, as they pertain to answers/posts by Z.

Here is Z's post #42.

The first two on that list, post #3 and post #9, have been answered by Z here.
 
Zeuzzz said:
post #3
DeiRenDopa said:
Um, er, ...

Zeuzzz, that post you just wrote contains ~2,000 words, 2 (long) quotes, 3 links, and 11 references (each of which is a link). The 11 references include a 178 page book, and the entire proceedings of a summer workshop.

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?
Click to expand...


Ok, try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#Overview
Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].
2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.
Click to expand...

Concise enough?

A little extra. Reference 10 reads; "H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the 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 RE/RE3. 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." (p.2-3)"

[...]
Click to expand...
Thank you Z.

In post #775, I talked a bit about redshifts.

From Z's concise definition of PC, we can see - quite starkly - just how serious the inconsistency between theory and observations/experiment is.

"a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"

"Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory."

So, there's no shortage of observations of the redshifts of galaxies and quasars (and some other objects too); and plenty of independent studies confirming the Hubble relationship between distance and redshift.

There is, however, a complete dearth of "physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth" that can be used to explain the Hubble relationship*.

I know Z has tried a couple of times to address this (neither robinson nor BAC have, as far as I know), but they have been either very feeble explanations or abject failures, depending on how relaxed you want to be about applying the usual criteria in science.

It took a while, but now we can clearly see that PC fails, as science, in one (of three) of its self-proclaimed core assumptions.

* at least in a consistent fashion; once you relax the consistency requirement - making PC thereby the very definition of woo - it's almost too easy to dream up an explanation.
 
BeAChooser said:
And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma? :)
Click to expand...

What was that about? :)
Do you feel better now? ;)

More importantly why would it matter if you are asking that questiion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom