Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So in your opinion, this paper from Guth that I have been critiquing is 100% accurate and it is the same precise mathematical model being used today?
Is that your list of postdictions?

But to answer your question:
Here is his original paper: A. H. Guth, "The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems", Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981).
It was "100% accurate" for less than a year until the bubble collision problem was solved by Linde, Albrecht and Steinhardt.
(Linde, "A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution Of The Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy And Primordial Monopole Problems", Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982).
and A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, "Cosmology For Grand Unified Theories With Radiatively Induced Symmetry Breaking," Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982). )
 
Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf



It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

birkelandyohkohmini.jpg


That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.
Question about source ...

MM - or anyone else - what is the source of the image of the Sun (right-hand of the two)? And what are the details of the image?

I think it's from Yohkoh, but have no idea about which instrument, what filter (if any), integration time, date, time, etc.
 
Last edited:
They come from the EM fields that surround everything in this solar system. They vibrate inside the chamber and create "pressure" on both sides of the plates. The pressure on one side is simply 'greater than' the pressure on the other side, depending on the specific geometry in play.

How do the photons get inside the chamber? It's not too terribly difficult to block EM radiation.
 
Yes he did and he wrote all about it.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf



It doesn't matter how steadfastly you cling to pure denial, you can't change history dude. He actually "predicted" high speed solar wind from real "experiments" in a real lab. He actually "predicted' coronal loop activity and took images of his loops from his simulations.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg

That is what a physical "prediction" from empirical experimentation looks like by the way. I know you guys have no clue what empirical "prediction" is supposed to look like, but there you go.
We do know that empirical "prediction" does not consist of comparing things that just look alike (e.g. are galaxies whirlpools? - they look like them!). Pictures are of little use unless there are numbers and a theoretical basis as well.

Your pictures are especially useless since you are claiming that Birkeland predicted solar physics and yet you compare his pictures with modern pictures of the Sun at a cherrypicked point in time. Most pictures of the Sun do not look like the one you have.
 
I don't know how old you are. Maybe it's an age thing, maybe it's just a personal choice issue. I'm old enough to have studied cosmology theory *before* Guth's monopole slaying inflation theory became "vogue". I've "been around the block" a few times and seen under the hood of more than a few "theories' on cosmology. Maybe your too young to have had that kind of exposure, or perhaps you simply made different conscious choices than I have made. I do understand that there are *many* cosmology theories, not just the *one* that you seem to prefer.
I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to have had to change my opinion on the best cosmological model based on new evidence. It might surprise you but I initially found the idea of a cosmological constant weird and wasn't willing to accept it too readily.

I also understand that there are many theories of cosmology. Note that several times in past posts I've written about the effects of dark energy 'if it exists'. This is an indication that I recognise there are some alternatives that are or may in the future become competitive.

I also recognise that some theories of cosmology are not competitive now and seem unlikely ever to be competitive.

The majority of my comments are aimed at dealing with what I see as unfair and unfounded criticism against certain theories, not in pushing those theories as being any more favoured than they already are.

Just so you better understand my position.
 
Question about source ...

MM - or anyone else - what is the source of the image of the Sun (right-hand of the two)? And what are the details of the image?

I think it's from Yohkoh, but have no idea about which instrument, what filter (if any), integration time, date, time, etc.
Follow-on question, re MM's post #1507 (that I quoted)...

I have searched the ~160MB document in MM's post ("birkeland.pdf"), but could not find info on "images of his loops", specifically the one presented in that post. There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

So, a question for MM - or anyone else who knows - how was that image created (or taken)? What is the (presumably photographic) medium? The exposure time? The (type of) camera (presumably it was a camera)? When (date) was the image taken? What are the experimental conditions?
 
Follow-on question, re MM's post #1507 (that I quoted)...

I have searched the ~160MB document in MM's post ("birkeland.pdf"), but could not find info on "images of his loops", specifically the one presented in that post. There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.

So, a question for MM - or anyone else who knows - how was that image created (or taken)? What is the (presumably photographic) medium? The exposure time? The (type of) camera (presumably it was a camera)? When (date) was the image taken? What are the experimental conditions?
Hi DRD.
The Birkeland image seems to be to be from CHAPTER VI (ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE) of the book, figue 247a or maybe figure 253 which look the same.

The book was written in September 1913. Thus the images were taken before then.

I see that Birkeland compares the appearance of the Terralla discharges to solar flares and sunspots but is careful to use term analogy (e.g. "experimental analogies" on page 670) rather than model.
(There are photos of his lab around page 667).

The Preface to part II has (page 414):
The experimental investigations which at first were designed to procure analogies capable of explaining phenomena on the earth, such as aurora and magnetic disturbances, were subsequently extended, as was only natural, with the object of procuring information as to the conditions under which the emission of the assumed helio-cathode rays from the sun might be supposed to take place.
The magnetic globe was then made the cathode in the vacuum-box, and experiments were carried on under these conditions for many years.
It was in this way that there gradually appeared experimental analogies to various cosmic phenomena, such as zodiacal light, Saturn's rings, sun-spots and spiral nebulae.
 
But in any case, I can find no reference to electric currents in the sun, either as the source of the sun's heat, or as the source for his "corpuscular precipitation". Since you are so convinced that Birkeland has demonstrated the electrical source of the solar wind, and since you are the self-appointed expert on things Birkeland, you will have to stop guessing and show explicitly where Birkeland has modeled, or even mentioned, the electrical source of the solar wind, assuming you want to maintain any credibility at all on that point.

You'll probably find this website to be an easier read, but you can also go to page 661 of Birkeland's PDF file as well.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

Notice how Birkeland compares the images to the images of the sun's corona, and notes the "ray structures" near the poles and compares that to solar activity as well. In these experiments his sphere is charged as a cathode. In various parts of the book he talks about having to clean the soot from the glass due to the discharge activity from the sphere and the oils inside the chamber and on the sphere.
 
You'll probably find this website to be an easier read, but you can also go to page 661 of Birkeland's PDF file as well.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

Notice how Birkeland compares the images to the images of the sun's corona, and notes the "ray structures" near the poles and compares that to solar activity as well. In these experiments his sphere is charged as a cathode. In various parts of the book he talks about having to clean the soot from the glass due to the discharge activity from the sphere and the oils inside the chamber and on the sphere.

That is correct - that is exactly what Birkeland does in (his own words) his "experimental analogies". He states that the images in his terrella ("little earth") look like some images of the Sun.
He suggests various theories in the pages after 661. e.g.
Sun-spots may be considered as the eruptive centres of similar disruptive discharges, and the question then immediately arises: Where shall we seek for the positive pole of these discharges, in which the spots, or that which surrounds them, represent the cathode?
There are several possible solutions to this question. [Followed by a list of 3 solutions]

For some reason science has not stood still since 1913. Birkeland did not know about fusion and so explained his analogy in terms that he knew, e.g. electrical discharges. His explanations have been superceded by better data.

The image you keep posting just happens to be useless. It is a comparison of a pre-1913 image with a cherry-picked image from the millions of modern images of the Sun. I could pick any of the other modern images that do not look like his picture and say that disproves his analogy.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
There is also - apparently - no info on MM's own website.
This is actually a pretty accurate statement in general, not just in regards to your question.
I did learn one thing ...

... in this thread, MM has said, in many posts, how critical empirical research is, in science.

Presumably, his own website provides a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like.

If that presumption is so - and it'd be nice to have MM say so explicitly - then anyone can use it as data, for testing hypotheses concerning the nature of "empirical research", as actually practiced by MM.

Although I did not go through the website with a formal hypothesis in mind, nor did I seek to test any such in an objective, quantitative way, I was nonetheless struck by just how different the (presumed) practice of (empirical) science is from what I would have expected, based on what MM has said, so stridently, in posts in this thread.

For example - as my efforts to track the Yohkoh and Birkeland "images" to their sources has shown - it is actually quite difficult to independently verify that images displayed on the website are what they purport to be* ... if only because MM seems to do a very poor job of referencing his sources.

ETA: to take just one example of what sorts of things you might want to check: image orientation. The two images appear to have some symmetry around an axis that is ~vertical (Yohkoh), and close to vertical (perhaps ~15o off?) (Birkeland). Now if you wanted to check what the orientation of the Yohkoh image is (wrt the Sun's rotational axis), you can't ... without any info on that image; similarly, if it's the orientation of the magnetic field (if there is one) in the Birkeland image, you can't ... without any info on that image.

* I'm not saying they aren't, just that it's hard to check
 
Last edited:
That is correct - that is exactly what Birkeland does in (his own words) his "experimental analogies". He states that the images in his terrella ("little earth") look like some images of the Sun.
He suggests various theories in the pages after 661. e.g.

By the way, did you happen to notice all his mathematical calculations after that?

What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.

For some reason science has not stood still since 1913. Birkeland did not know about fusion and so explained his analogy in terms that he knew, e.g. electrical discharges. His explanations have been superceded by better data.

Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light. The idea in his day is that "gas" might be drifting by at low speed, but Birkeland's "experimental predictions" suggested otherwise. That's what a real "prediction" is all about. He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures, and all the core tenets of what is "EU/PC theory" today. Guess what? It works in a lab, and it has provided real "predictions", including coronal loops, "jets" from the poles, things we now see in Hinode images of the sun. How can that be a "pure coincidence"? Give me a break! No wonder your industry is so confused. It forgot how to "empirically test" anything. If it can't be simulated on a computer, they aren't interested in getting their hands dirty.

The image you keep posting just happens to be useless.

How in your infinite scientific wisdom did you arrive at that conclusion?

It is a comparison of a pre-1913 image with a cherry-picked image from the millions of modern images of the Sun. I could pick any of the other modern images that do not look like his picture and say that disproves his analogy.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?
 
Last edited:
I did learn one thing ...

... in this thread, MM has said, in many posts, how critical empirical research is, in science.

Presumably, his own website provides a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like.

What? No. *Birkeland* demonstrated a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like. I just put together an introductory website to the whole concept of a Birkeland solar model. I have referenced my sources. You just have refused to read them or respond to them meaningfully.

Care to address Birkeland's "predictions"? Care to explain Kosovichev's Doppler image, or that LMSAL image on my website for us DRD?

It seems to me that you spend all your time not focused on providing empirical evidence to support beliefs, and all your time on ignoring the data entirely so that you might focus your attention on the individual rather than the "science" that has been presented by *Birkeland*.
 
Last edited:
I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to have had to change my opinion on the best cosmological model based on new evidence.

The concept of "best" becomes a "subjective choice", particularly when Lambda theory starts by inserting ad hoc forces of nature that cannot be demonstrated, nor can we *ever* demonstrate it in the case of inflation.

I know that Birkeland's core theories work in a lab. I know we observe large scale Birkeland currents in space. I see large coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as he 'predicted'. I observe high speed solar wind blowing by Earth. I observe "jets" around the poles of the sun. I observe all the key things that I would expect to observe based on Birkeland's experimental "predictions". That to me makes EU/PC theory a better "predictor" of events in space. It's obviously not as "refined" at larger scales or as "curve fitted' to redshift phenomenon, but as a basic cosmology theory, it has already shown that it has *predictive value*.

It might surprise you but I initially found the idea of a cosmological constant weird and wasn't willing to accept it too readily.

It depends I guess on your age. The notion of an expansion or contraction was not surprising. The ad hoc "additions" like inflation and DE are what turn me off in the final analysis.

I also understand that there are many theories of cosmology. Note that several times in past posts I've written about the effects of dark energy 'if it exists'. This is an indication that I recognise there are some alternatives that are or may in the future become competitive.

It seems to me that the most "likely" force of nature to explain the acceleration of a plasma body is an EM field. "Dark energy" doesn't exist in nature.

I also recognise that some theories of cosmology are not competitive now and seem unlikely ever to be competitive.

I guess it depends on how you define "competitive", and whether you place an emphasis on how that theory "predicts" observations *inside* of our solar system.

The majority of my comments are aimed at dealing with what I see as unfair and unfounded criticism against certain theories, not in pushing those theories as being any more favoured than they already are.

Just so you better understand my position.

That is good to know. I accept you might believe my criticisms of Lambda-CDM theory are unfair, but then why would it be "unfair' to expect a physical demonstration of concept?
 
What? No. *Birkeland* demonstrated a specific, concrete example of what such research should be like. You just have refused to read them or respond to them meaningfully.

Care to address Birkeland's "predictions"?

[...]
If you will recall ...

... considerably earlier in this thread, TT said he'd look at "solar wind", wrt what you claimed and what was (is) actually in the Birkeland material.

I said I'd look at "coronal loops" and "jets".

TT asked you for page numbers to help him (the source doc is, after all, >900 pages long); you helpfully provided them.

I made the same request, wrt coronal loops and jets, but you ignored that request. No surprise, then, that it is taking me longer than it took TT to check out your claims.

I just put together an introductory website to the whole concept of a Birkeland solar model. I have referenced my sources.
You did?!? :jaw-dropp

What is the source of the Yohkoh image? On what date was it taken, at what time? What is the integration time? With what instrument? Using what filter? What is the orientation of the image?

This is what one reads as the caption to the Yohkoh image you included in an earlier post in this thread:

"Yohkoh's view of the chaotic surface of the sun and its increased electrical activity at the dawn of the new millennium. The highest energy is concentrated at the base of the electrical arcs and around the arcs themselves. The light we see in these images is concentrated in the arc itself, indicating this is the hottest iron on the sun. It is being heated by electrical activity." - no date, no orientation, no instrument (Yohkoh has what, three?), no filter, nothing!

Elsewhere on that page you say:

"The following theories are based on concepts that came from downloading, observing and analyzing gigabytes worth of "raw EIT" and other types of SOHO and TRACE videos over many months, and actively viewing TRACE SOHO, and YOHKOH satellite images and other videos and photos of the sun over many years. It is also based in large part on the work of Dr. Kristian Birkeland, Dr. Charles Bruce, and Dr. Oliver Manuel." (bold added; as a side note: nowhere do you describe, much less present, just what analyses you performed).

And:

"I have provided quite a bit of video and JPG files on this website from many satellite images to fully support the ideas I am presenting, but by no means have I provided all the video that is available through the Rhessi, Geos, YOHKOH, SOHO's or TRACE websites." For some of the SOHO and TRACE images on the webpage, there is info on the date and filter (for example), so checking against the source is relatively easy; for the Yohkoh image, it is not.

And so on.
 
Last edited:
The concept of "best" becomes a "subjective choice", particularly when Lambda theory starts by inserting ad hoc forces of nature that cannot be demonstrated, nor can we *ever* demonstrate it in the case of inflation.
It's not always possible to have things as quantifiable as one might like, but I rather like the idea of Bayesian model comparison. One can penalise the introduction of ad hoc forces in that scheme because they will have unconstrained parameters - their strength for example will not be constrained by preexisting theory.
Note that Lambda in LCDM is not a force. It's a source of bog standard ordinary gravity. It's still penalised in this system though, as we have no a priori reason to say it should have a density (relative to critical) of 0.7. Despite that, the model comes out well due to its excellent fit with observation from relatively few parameters.
So I would respectfully disagree that the addition of new kinds of physics and the determination of the best model must be subjective and that introducing new physics cannot lead to a quantitative decision procedure between competing models.

That is good to know. I accept you might believe my criticisms of Lambda-CDM theory are unfair, but then why would it be "unfair' to expect a physical demonstration of concept?
Not everything can be demonstrated in the lab - which seems to be what you mean by a "physical demonstration of concept". As an example, gravitational lensing cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory but it is quite observable astronomically - I hope you would admit that?
 
By the way, did you happen to notice all his mathematical calculations after that?
By the way, did you notice his mathematical calculations after that are mostly to do with the terrella?
He does have
The energy 1/2 E2 C = 5.9X1036 ergs, transformed into heat, will be sufficient to heat to 175 C. globe of iron the size of the earth.
What this has to do with the observed temperature of the Sun is uncertain.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?

Birkelands analogies do not "*include the math and everything*". For example where are his calculations for the shape of sun spots? How does he explain the about 11 year sun spot cycle?

But I do agree with you: His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation with the numbers (empirics?) and knowledge of his time.
The part in bold is the point that you are missing.

P.S. I have not seen any predictions in Birkelands analogies. Since he is comparing his terralla pictures to existing images of the Sun shouldn't these be postdictions? From your previous postings this then invalidates his analogies in the same way as the (as yet unlisted) "postdictions" of inflation invalidate inflation.

Please give a list of Birkelands predictions.

P.S. We are still waiting for your list of "postdictions" of inflation.

Perhaps you can at least give us an idea of the size of the list - is it more than 1? more than 10? more than 1,000,000? Or maybe it is a great big whopping zero, nada, nothing, just something you made up? :rolleyes:
 
I know that Birkeland's core theories work in a lab. I know we observe large scale Birkeland currents in space. I see large coronal loops in the solar atmosphere as he 'predicted'. I observe high speed solar wind blowing by Earth. I observe "jets" around the poles of the sun. I observe all the key things that I would expect to observe based on Birkeland's experimental "predictions". That to me makes EU/PC theory a better "predictor" of events in space. It's obviously not as "refined" at larger scales or as "curve fitted' to redshift phenomenon, but as a basic cosmology theory, it has already shown that it has *predictive value*.

How can this possibly be the case when it predicts (and explains) none of the cosmological observations?
 
What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.
None of this has anything to do with cosmology.

You're missing the point entirely. His work is quintessential physics at the level of empirical experimentation. Not only did he use his work to demonstrate aurora, he "predicted" key observations we now find in modern satellite images of the sun. How can you just arrogantly ignore all these real "predictions" when they *include the math and everything*? Where do you guys get off being so damn arrogant when you *still* cannot explain these events?
Hypocrisy at its finest. The man who cannot explain any of the important cosmological observations of the last century trying to pour scorn on theories that do then accuses others of being "arrogant" for allegedly not being able to explain some things he hand-picked (which having nothing to do with cosmology).
 
What Birkeland did is *real empirical science*. His "predictions" were not "postdicted", they were actual "predictions" based on something he learned from "active experimentation" with "real control mechanisms." Somewhere along the line, your whole industry forgot what these "experiments" were about, and what a real "prediction" is.

Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

Sure, but his basic concept is completely sound, even to this day. You folks can't 'explain' solar wind acceleration, but in his own words, he expected it to reach speeds near the speed of light. We have seen CME's eject particles at a significant portion of the speed of light.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.
2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.
3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light. High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.
4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

He also drew correlations between the electrical nature of the corona and it's higher temperatures,

This is called a "hypothesis". He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures. That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways. Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"
 
Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

Is that *really* (truly) all you learned while reading through his work?

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

What Birkeland did was conduct *empirical experiments with a variety of control mechanisms, different sphere sizes and textures, different magnetic field strengths, different amounts of current flow, etc. These folks (not just Birkeland by the way) "simulated" what they believed were the actual conditions in space. They photographed and documented their work.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.

Sure, but a CME will have a direct impact on solar wind in the direction it's headed.

2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Yes, but at a million miles per hour, it's *much much much* faster than anything "predicted" during his time. We have observed CME events that spit out particles at very high speeds and the solar wind speed is *faster* in the polar regions than nearer the equator.

3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Sure, but it's incredibly fast isn't it? Besides *electrical discharges on Earth*, what do you of in nature that might have that affect on an atmosphere?

High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.

Ok, but then *what* is accelerating *these* particles in the solar atmosphere?

4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

No, not at all. Depending on whether or not you would personally equate "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection/circuit reconnection", I'll even let you include Birkeland's experiments as a form of "support" for "circuit/particle/magnetic" reconnection theory. I guess it all depends on how you and I come down on that specific issue.

This is called a "hypothesis".

No, it's a "theory" that has no "hypothetical entities" in it, unlike you Lambda-ThreehypotheticalEntitiesInOne" theory.

He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures.

It's a damn obvious one too, and one that we know is used in nature right here on Earth. We know there are *stronger* discharges in Saturn's atmosphere. The sun is certainly larger than either of these physical bodies in space.

That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways.

Shown *empirically* with a sphere in a vacuum, or done in a computer simulation?

Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

Based on modern satellite imagery and heliosiesmology studies, I think Birkeland's model wins hands down. Even if you prefer a gas model solar model, the 'discharge' aspects of his experiments would still apply.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"

The problem of course with your analogy is that whereas today we have better atomic models than the one Bohr presented, you *don't have a better explanation* for solar wind around a whole sphere, high temperature coronal loops, "jets", those solar images on my website, or any of the key "predictions' of Birkeland's solar model. All you have are a bunch of ideas that fail to explain even the satellite images on my website, and that fail to "explain" in the sense of being able to "predict" any of the observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere.

What's that "stratification subsurface" doing there sitting at around .995R where the standard solar model predicts there to be an open convection zone?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
 
Yes, Birkeland did controlled experiments with a charged sphere in a vacuum chamber. These were controlled experiments, and from them you learn (a) the behavior of charged spheres in vacuum chambers, and (b) if you'd like to generalize a bit, you can learn that plasmas consist of charged particles obeying Maxwell's Equations.

Is that *really* (truly) all you learned while reading through his work?

And here we are, MM, trying to explain to you that Maxwell's Equations describe magnetic reconnection---and you deny it even though Birkeland's experiments agree with Maxwell's Equations.

You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

What Birkeland did was conduct *empirical experiments with a variety of control mechanisms, different sphere sizes and textures, different magnetic field strengths, different amounts of current flow, etc. These folks (not just Birkeland by the way) "simulated" what they believed were the actual conditions in space. They photographed and documented their work.

So much wrongness:
1) There is a difference between CMEs and the solar wind.

Sure, but a CME will have a direct impact on solar wind in the direction it's headed.

2) The speed of the solar wind is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Yes, but at a million miles per hour, it's *much much much* faster than anything "predicted" during his time. We have observed CME events that spit out particles at very high speeds and the solar wind speed is *faster* in the polar regions than nearer the equator.

3) The typical speed of a CME is much, much slower than the speed of light.

Sure, but it's incredibly fast isn't it? Besides *electrical discharges on Earth*, what do you of in nature that might have that affect on an atmosphere?

High-energy events include small numbers of relativistic particles zipping through the slow wind.

Ok, but then *what* is accelerating *these* particles in the solar atmosphere?

4) You are only saying "You folks can't explain solar wind acceleration" with an implicit addendum of "... if I ignore all of your non-electric-sun explanations because I personally don't believe them"

No, not at all. Depending on whether or not you would personally equate "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection/circuit reconnection", I'll even let you include Birkeland's experiments as a form of "support" for "circuit/particle/magnetic" reconnection theory. I guess it all depends on how you and I come down on that specific issue.

This is called a "hypothesis".

No, it's a "theory" that has no "hypothetical entities" in it, unlike you Lambda-ThreehypotheticalEntitiesInOne" theory.

He showed that electricity was one possible way of getting high-temperature plasma and filamentary structures.

It's a damn obvious one too, and one that we know is used in nature right here on Earth. We know there are *stronger* discharges in Saturn's atmosphere. The sun is certainly larger than either of these physical bodies in space.

That's fine. Subsequent research has shown many other ways.

Shown *empirically* with a sphere in a vacuum, or done in a computer simulation?

Modern science believes that these other ways, not Birkeland's way, are a better description of the Sun.

Based on modern satellite imagery and heliosiesmology studies, I think Birkeland's model wins hands down. Even if you prefer a gas model solar model, the 'discharge' aspects of his experiments would still apply.

You are saying something like, "Open your eyes! Niels Bohr showed that you can explain the atom with a solar-system model! He did all of these alpha scattering experiments which agree with it! He predicted the x-ray spectra of all hydrogenic atoms! How can you say that the Bohr model is wrong when all of Bohr's experiments confirm it?"

The problem of course with your analogy is that whereas today we have better atomic models than the one Bohr presented, you *don't have a better explanation* for solar wind around a whole sphere, high temperature coronal loops, "jets", those solar images on my website, or any of the key "predictions' of Birkeland's solar model. All you have are a bunch of ideas that fail to explain even the satellite images on my website, and that fail to "explain" in the sense of being able to "predict" any of the observed phenomenon in the solar atmosphere.

What's that "stratification subsurface" doing there sitting at around .995R where the standard solar model predicts there to be an open convection zone?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
 
Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?
 
Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?
It would not. The magnetic lines between the permanent magnets do not disconnect - they basically stretch.

See Magnetic reconnection.

This topic has been in serveral threads over the last year or two.
An example of a posting in this thread by Tim Thompson:
Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection. The phenomenological consequence is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field (which loses internal energy) to the plasma (which gains kinetic energy). As noted in the papers cited above, the observations of laboratory plasma are consistent with the predictions based on magnetic reconnection theory. Furthermore, we know that double layers are not involved, because the topology of the field is observable before, during and after reconnection, so double layers would be obviously visible. Furthermore, the result of a collapsing double layer is observationally distinguishable from that of reconnection. The observations in fact are consistent with the latter, and inconsistent with the former.

Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.

One must also observe that the theory of magnetic reconnection is well developed, and is commonly described in plasma physics text books (i.e., Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, concentrates in detail on magnetic reconnection; other books typically include chapters on magnetic reconnection, i.e., Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan, Cambridge University Press, 2006 (Bellan heads the Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech, which does an outstanding job of simulating solar prominences in in the laboratory); Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005; The Physics of Plasmas, Boyd & Sanderson, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993).

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.
 
It would not. The magnetic lines between the permanent magnets do not disconnect - they basically stretch.

That's not correct. If you move two standard permanent magnets around, lines will reconnect. But by "magnetic reconnection" people usually mean the analogous process in plasma, which is more interesting since it generally involves a release of energy.

So @Skwinty - yes, although it doesn't just happen when you first pull them apart.
 
So @Skwinty - yes, although it doesn't just happen when you first pull them apart.


I thought so, because when I played with 2 magnets, a piece of paper and some iron filings, thats what it looked like to me.
Just wanted to double check before saying anyone was wrong though;)
 
You seem to be missing a key issue here Ben. It could not *disagree* with Maxwell's equations unless Maxwell's equations were wrong. They however insist that a magnetic field is a full continuum, without beginning and without out. They cannot "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines.

So the past 30-some pages of people explaining magnetic reconnection to you has had zero impact whatsoever, eh? You haven't even gotten to the point of saying "They cannot (despite arguments to the contrary) disconnect", nor "They cannot (AFAIK) reconnect", nor even "They cannot disconnect (although the topology of circuits can change this is not reconnection)". Nope. That's a classic rhetorical strategy you're missing, MM.

Anyway: you just made a false statement about Maxwell's Equations. Look at them again---do you see a "continuum" requirement? Nope. Do you see a "vector direction cannot change while B=0"? Nope. You just made it up. The only physical constraint on the magnetic vector field is that it be divergenceless. Any other field whatsoever is achievable for some value of the current field---and that includes reconnecting fields, and divergenceless reconnecting fields are easy to create.

Do you want to argue that no divergenceless vector field can reconnect?

Do you want to argue that there's some extra constraint on B fields other than divergencelessness?
 
Do you want to argue that there's some extra constraint on B fields other than divergencelessness?

The problem is that MM read on some quack website that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations, and that became his new faith. Since he doesn't understand math he can't check that statement, and for the same reason he completely ignored the very simple and completely explicit solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects which was posted here many times. So he won't be able to answer that question - he'll just retreat into more schizophrenic ranting.
 
Question about magnetic lines connecting and disconnecting.
If you take two permanent magnets and allow them to stick together, could this be construed as magnetic line connection and when you pull them apart be magnetic line disconnection?

What a delightful analogy. I'm curious about their answer too. I suppose as long as you recognize that there is a *physical* (atomic) 'reconnection' and 'disconnection' process, sure, I *suppose* it could "seem" that way.

The basic problem I have with this idea, is that it is exactly like referring to a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere, or Saturn's atmosphere as a form of "magnetic reconnection". We know that *electrical discharges* in the Earth's atmosphere create gamma rays we can observe in Rhessi images. We use that same equipment to observe the solar atmosphere and we observe gamma rays there too. Suddenly "magnetic reconnection" did it?
eye-popping.gif
 
So the past 30-some pages of people explaining magnetic reconnection to you has had zero impact whatsoever, eh?

I would not say "zero impact" actually, but it's still illogical IMO for you to refer to high energy discharges as "magnetic reconnection" events. It's like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection event". Even single coronal loops reach millions of degrees.

You haven't even gotten to the point of saying "They cannot (despite arguments to the contrary) disconnect", nor "They cannot (AFAIK) reconnect", nor even "They cannot disconnect (although the topology of circuits can change this is not reconnection)". Nope. That's a classic rhetorical strategy you're missing, MM.

As Skwinty noted, and your side has also noted, the "topology" of the field lines can and does change depending on the *physical conditions* being changed. In the case of two magnets, the lines rearrange themselves based on a repositioning of solids. In the case of a singular plasma filament, the topology of the field line around the thread changes as the plasma filament moves around and the currents change direction. The current flow generates the show. Turn off the current, not more light show. You folks have the cart before the horse as it relates to *powerful* magnetic field *in light plasma*. How do you figure that's done if not *because of the current flow in the filament*?

Alfven essentially rejected all forms of 'magnetic reconnection' theory because he understood it was the *current flow* that was changing direction. It would be far more congruent to simply call this "circuit reconnection", or "particle reconnection" so that it remains consistent with other branches of physics, including electrical engineering. I suppose that due to his background in electrical engineering, that is exactly why Alfven rejected that label.

The solar wind is whipping by us at over a million miles per hour. We're sitting inside of a "current flow' between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere.
 
I would not say "zero impact" actually, but it's still illogical IMO for you to refer to high energy discharges as "magnetic reconnection" events. It's like calling a lightening bolt a "magnetic reconnection event". Even single coronal loops reach millions of degrees.

One thing at a time. Please agree or disagree:

1) I can set up some currents over here and get some magnetic fields in a vacuum over there. Yes or no?

2) If yes, those magnetic fields---way over there in the vacuum, not just in the middle of the source current---can change topology in the way that everyone refers to as "reconnection", as in the several explicit Maxwell's Equations-obeying examples we've shown you. Yes or no?

Let's start there. Notice: no plasma yet, no energy releases. I just want to see if you've gotten it straight on the easy part.
 
The problem is that MM read on some quack website that reconnection violates Maxwell's equations,

No, I actually read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, and that is where my original objections came from. He rejected the idea as "pseudo-science", mostly because it ignored the actual *physics* going on at the level of particle physics.

and that became his new faith.

I only have faith in empirical physics and personal experience. I experience gravity. I have "faith" it exists in nature.

Since he doesn't understand math he can't check that statement,

This is BS. I simply won't do the math dance at your command. None of this even relates to a problem with the math in the final analysis, it's a problem with a conceptual understanding at the level of *physics* again, as is *always* the case with you folks. Particles and *circuits* can physically "reconnect". Magnetic line topology changes are to be expected and can be observed in any electrical discharge.

and for the same reason he completely ignored the very simple and completely explicit solution to Maxwell's equations that reconnects which was posted here many times. So he won't be able to answer that question - he'll just retreat into more schizophrenic ranting.

Actually, that isn't true. I was handed a paper over at space.com from Birn et all a few months ago, that convinced me that there was no problem with that particular mathematical presentation of "magnetic reconnection". The only problem I could find in the whole paper was the "name of the process". It was a mathematical presentation of 'circuit reconnection' or "particle' reconnection, but there is nothing unique about this energy exchange process. It is simply a kinetic energy exchange at the level of charged particles in motion with maybe a wee bit of 'induction' just for fun.
 
Last edited:
Here is the abstract from Tim's first link:

Abstract
The behavior and interaction of magnetic flux ropes have long been a topic of interest to solar and space plasma physicists, but few laboratory experiments have been performed as it is necessary to have a relatively collisionless plasma and currents with significant self-generated fields. Movable lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) cathodes have been developed to study the 3D dynamics of flux ropes in the Large Plasma Device (LaPD). Each 2.5~cm LaB6 cathode can produce current densities of 5-20 A/cm2 and Δ B/B ~ 10%. The background plasma (n ~ 2 × 1012 cm-3, d ~ 60 cm, L ~ 18 m, and τrep= 1 s) is produced with a DC discharge using a pulsed barium oxide-coated cathode. The two current channels are created by biasing the LaB6 cathodes with respect to a grid anode at the opposite end of the chamber. They are emitted parallel to each other and the background B field. J × B forces cause the currents to move across the field and interact. Reconnection has been observed at multiple locations between the two currents. The role of reconnection in these interactions will be investigated through detailed volume measurments of the magnetic field and current density (65000 time steps at 20000 spatial points). Data from Langmuir probes and microwave horn antennas will also be presented.

In other words "currents interact" between the two plasma threads. Wow, I'd have never guessed! Come on. Such experiments simply demonstrate that "currents flow" in plasma and electrons seek the path of least resistance and will "jump" between the plasma threads, and eventually change the flow pattern entirely. This is simply "circuit reconnection".
 
None of this has anything to do with cosmology.

Baloney. We find "Birkeland currents" outside of our solar system.

Hypocrisy at its finest. The man who cannot explain any of the important cosmological observations of the last century

Excuse me? I simply *admit* my ignorance rather than just "make up" stuff and call it an "explanation". "Dark energy" is an "explanation"?

trying to pour scorn on theories that do

That do what? How does "dark energy" actually "explain" acceleration?

then accuses others of being "arrogant" for allegedly not being able to explain some things he hand-picked (which having nothing to do with cosmology).

I'm blaming you for being so arrogant that you would not listen to the one guy that *could* explain all these observations over 100 years ago, when you *still* cannot do it!

You're the one doing all the "hand picking" about what you're putting the most emphasis on here, not me. Birkeland currents exist in outer space, just as they exist here inside our own solar system. We even observe "current carrying' "magnetic ropes" form between the sun and the Earth. If and when you folks figure out that we live inside an electric universe, none of these "mysteries" will seem all that mysterious anymore. At the moment, you're all *INTENT* on *not* embracing the one thing that would help you understand these processes. Why would a "helix shape" in plasma be an enigma to you folks? Go out an purchase an inexpensive plasma ball, and you can watch them form in light plasma any time you wish.

What I most resent is the notion that Lambda-PureMakeBelieve theory is somehow superior to all other cosmology theories. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of *empirical physics*.
 
It's not always possible to have things as quantifiable as one might like,......

Not everything can be demonstrated in the lab - which seems to be what you mean by a "physical demonstration of concept". As an example, gravitational lensing cannot be demonstrated in the laboratory but it is quite observable astronomically - I hope you would admit that?

We are still talking past one another here IMO. Lambda-CDM theory does not have a problem as it relates to "quantification". It's problems are related to a lack of "qualification". Sure, it is certainly true that we cannot demonstrate everything on Earth. We can't necessarily construct a whole sun in a lab. We can however simulate some of it's processes in lab. While we cannot create an environment capable of sustaining hydrogen fusion on Earth, fusion does occur in nature. It is therefore a valid theory to suggest it may power a star even if we cannot build a whole star in lab to verify this point.

If however you claim "dark matter" powers a whole star, I'd of course like to see "dark matter' power *anything* here on Earth. I'm not asking for the moon here, just a simple demonstration of concept. I'm also willing to let you scale anything to size so long as you can physically demonstrate it at some physical level.

To claim "inflation, dark energy and dark matter did it" is absolutely no better IMO than claiming God did it. IMO Lambda proponents are turning science into a faith oriented religion. It's one thing to figure out the mathematical odds of various theories as long as we all stick to empirical physics. If however we start stuffing a theory with elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries, those statistical comparisons between competing theories become physically meaningless.
 
Baloney. We find "Birkeland currents" outside of our solar system.
So? "Out of the solar system" =/= cosmology

Excuse me? I simply *admit* my ignorance rather than just "make up" stuff and call it an "explanation". "Dark energy" is an "explanation"?
No you don't. You say PC/EU explains it. It doesn't. Dark energy is more an observation than an explanation. The cosmological constant is a possible explanation. That's why people are making empirical observations of the cosmos to see if it matches the theory that a CC causes the observed accelerated expansion.

That do what? How does "dark energy" actually "explain" acceleration?
See above.

I'm blaming you for being so arrogant that you would not listen to the one guy that *could* explain all these observations over 100 years ago, when you *still* cannot do it!
You're having a laugh right? Birkeland could explain the CMBR 50 years before it was discovered?

You're the one doing all the "hand picking" about what you're putting the most emphasis on here, not me.
I'm putting the emphasis on the observations that are relevant to LCDM since, after all, this is a thread about LCDM. If you want to discuss observations that have nothing to do with cosmology feel free, but its off topic for this thread.

Birkeland currents exist in outer space, just as they exist here inside our own solar system. We even observe "current carrying' "magnetic ropes" form between the sun and the Earth.
Right. Do you have any idea of the scale difference between and "between the sun and the Earth" and the typical scales for cosmology?

If and when you folks figure out that we live inside an electric universe, none of these "mysteries" will seem all that mysterious anymore.
I know we live in a Universe with gravity, the EM force, the strong force and the weak force. I also have a reasonable idea of when each is relevant.

At the moment, you're all *INTENT* on *not* embracing the one thing that would help you understand these processes. Why would a "helix shape" in plasma be an enigma to you folks? Go out an purchase an inexpensive plasma ball, and you can watch them form in light plasma any time you wish.
No. We're intent on having a conversation about LCDM... since that is the topic of this thread.

What I most resent is the notion that Lambda-PureMakeBelieve theory is somehow superior to all other cosmology theories.
I'm not familiar with LPMB theory. Anyway, its irrelevant. This is a thread about LCDM.

Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of *empirical physics*.
I wouldn't know. Like I said, I've never heard of LPMB theory.
 
To claim "inflation, dark energy and dark matter did it" is absolutely no better IMO than claiming God did it. IMO Lambda proponents are turning science into a faith oriented religion. It's one thing to figure out the mathematical odds of various theories as long as we all stick to empirical physics.
Well if by faith you mean making precise empirical observations of the expansion rate of the Universe or the black-body spectrum of the CMBR then I suppose you're right about it being faith orientated. But that's a pretty unorthodox definition of "faith" imo.

If however we start stuffing a theory with elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries, those statistical comparisons between competing theories become physically meaningless.
Good job nobody is stuffing their theories with " elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries" then isn't it.
 
So? "Out of the solar system" =/= cosmology

EU theory has been applied to "cosmology" as described in Cosmic Plasma. What's your point exactly?

No you don't. You say PC/EU explains it. It doesn't.

What I actually said is that *EM fields* could explain the acceleration of "plasma". Elves cannot.

Dark energy is more an observation than an explanation.

"Acceleration" is an "observation". "Dark energy" is more of a dogma than a real thing.

The cosmological constant is a possible explanation.

What is the *cause* of this "cosmological constant"?

That's why people are making empirical observations of the cosmos to see if it matches the theory that a CC causes the observed accelerated expansion.

From a skeptics perspective, you're trying to match up observations to your postdicted math theories about inflation elves and acceleration pixies.

I know we live in a Universe with gravity, the EM force, the strong force and the weak force. I also have a reasonable idea of when each is relevant.

How do you know when "dark energy" is relevant?
 
Well if by faith you mean making precise empirical observations of the expansion rate of the Universe or the black-body spectrum of the CMBR then I suppose you're right about it being faith orientated. But that's a pretty unorthodox definition of "faith" imo.

Actually none of those "interpretations" of the redshift phenomenon are actually an act of faith. It's when Lambda proponents suggest that 'inflation and dark energy and dark matter did it" that it becomes an "act of faith". In other words, I don't object to your belief that the universe is expanding or accelerating. What I object to is the "belief" that "inflation did it", or "dark energy did it".

Good job nobody is stuffing their theories with " elves, leprechauns and invisible faeries" then isn't it.

Lambda theory has dead inflation elves, dark energy acceleration leprechauns, and big fat invisible dark matter fairies doing all the work, and it *includes math*! Wheeeeeeee!
 
EU theory has been applied to "cosmology" as described in Cosmic Plasma. What's your point exactly?
"Cosmic plasmas" cannot be responsible for the key cosmological observations of the Universe. Fairly simple really.

What I actually said is that *EM fields* could explain the acceleration of "plasma". Elves cannot.
We're talking about the accelerated expansion of the universe as a whole. Or I was. You, for some very bizarre reason that I can't quite fathom, keep talking about elves.

"Acceleration" is an "observation". "Dark energy" is more of a dogma than a real thing.
Dark energy is just a name. How is this name a dogma?

What is the *cause* of this "cosmological constant"?
What is the cause of the fine structure constant being what we observe it to be?

From a skeptics perspective, you're trying to match up observations to your postdicted math theories about inflation elves and acceleration pixies.
a) They're not my theories.
b) The only one mentioning elves and pixies.
c) You really don't get this science malarkey do you. I'll repeat:
1) Make observation(s).
2) Construct theory to describe said observation(s).
3) Make predictions from said theory.
4) Compare prediction with observation/experiment.


How do you know when "dark energy" is relevant?
When we're observing on scales when it is observable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom