Jump to content

Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Removed nonsequitor

This statement has been creepting back in: "over 99% of the Universe is thought to consist of plasma by particle count, volume and baryonic mass."

There is a problem with the statement and that is namely that it gives no information about Plasma cosmology, but it does say something about astrophysical plasmas. Since there is no discussion of the difference between standard understanding of plasmas and this nonstandard idea, it is inappropriate to include this fact in the introduction where a lot of opinions and unsubstantiated claims are made that are, for the most part, nonstandard. Joshuaschroeder 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Are you joking, "That over 99% of the Universe is plasma", gives no relevant information about plasma cosmology? Ironic that it was as plasma cosmologist (Alfvén) that brought this to the attention of astronomy. Further ironic that many astronomical texts use "gas" when they mean "plasma", or "hydrogen" when they mean electrons and protons. And 99% plasma is not a more accurate description?
  • ".. a lot of opinions and unsubstantiated claims are made .." This is a page on the stance of plasma cosmology. If a plasma cosmologist believes that the moon is made of green cheese, then that is a FACT, that is what plasma cosmologists believe, and there is no need to explain to the reader that maybe this is not true. If you look at the page on pseudoscience and the "Fields often associated with pseudoscience", you will notice that the subject pages themselves generally described themselves without qualification; ie. they do not start "Chiromancy is a pseudoscience, with little scientific evidence...". Indeed, the analysis and criticism appear at the bottom of the page. Wikiepdia does not take a scientific point of view, it takes a neutral point of view.

--Iantresman 22:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

M87 Caption

  • Joshua, this is a page about Plasma Cosmology, not about black holes. The comment has no place here. That this is a plasma cosmology explanation is already given. The image is illustrating an article on plasma cosmology.
It is important to distinguish between the explanation made by standard astrophysics and that made by plasma cosmology. It is inappropriate to simply explain the jets in terms of plasma cosmology without offering the model that most people who study these objects use. It gives the reader the false impression that there is no standard explanation for the phenomenon. Joshuaschroeder 14:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I gave two specific references to detail models and corroborating descriptions. Why did you remove them? What part of the papers did you find lacking? --Iantresman 13:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This was unintentional. The one paper is about galactic filaments which is different from radio jets. The other paper is on the subject though and is kept. However, the paper is not detailed and provides only a cursory discussion of ideas -- by no means a well developed model. This needs to be pointed out. Joshuaschroeder 14:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Not detailed in the sense that it isn't predictive of particular jet characteristics but rather just outlines a general formulation for jets. Compare this to the detailed analysis of jets contained in this classic Martin Rees paper: [1]. There are no theoretical predictions nor matches to observations, instead there are handwaving arguments and vague gestures about comparing observations and theory, for example.
They aren't explanatory but simply descriptive. Compare it to the Rees paper where the actual measurements of the jets are shown to match the theoretical functions of them. We're talking about scientific utility here and Peratt's stuff is not useful in an explanatory sense. It makes no predictions, it contains no element of falsifiability. It is purely comparative. This is why it is correctly said to lack detail. Joshuaschroeder 20:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
What! Do we have the same paper? What caption do you have Fig 20? --Iantresman 21:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The same caption that you have on Fig 20. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Joshuaschroeder 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I am quite surprised by your comment on Perratt's paper that I referenced in the M87 caption. Astonished actually. I wanted to make sure that we are both looking at the same paper by Peratt. So we can check, what text do you have for Fig.20? --Iantresman 16:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Check for yourself: [2], This conversation seems to be going nowhere fast. Joshuaschroeder 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC: Requests for comment

We have two versions of the caption for the M87 image at the top of the article, pretty much summarised by the section above. Is one better than the other, or is there a compromise?

1. This original caption: M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines -- so-called synchrotron radiation. Advocates of plasma cosmology suggest that such radiation is due to Birkeland currents; [3] ]]

2. The version we see now, repeated here in case it changes: M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines -- so-called synchrotron radiation. Astrophysicists suggests that M87's dynamics are affected by a supermassive black hole, a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates. [4] Some plasma cosmologists have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion that radiation like this may be due to Birkeland currents, [5]. Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do.

Birkeland, i.e. force-free, currents do not in themselves results in any radiation. --Art Carlson 20:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Double layers and z-pinches do not in themselves results in any radiation, either. I suppose that conventional and plasma cosmologists agree that the radiation is electron synchrotron radiation. The difference would be on where the fast electrons come from. How much detail should there be in a figure caption? --Art Carlson 05:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Plasma cosomologists certainly think that double layers and z-pinches are able to accelerate electrons that produce various forms of radiation[6], including synchrotron radiation[7], and this is a page about plasmas cosmology. I think the question is, do we qualify every plasma cosmologist statement with the mainstream view (Wikipedia is non-point of view, not, scientific), when (a) we don't qualify mainstreams article statements with alternative views (b) we don't even qualify statements in "Fields often associated with pseudoscience" articles[8]. --Iantresman 09:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we don't feed the troll, and just keep reverting him until he goes away. Eventually he'll either give up or get a job and move on.

JoshuaSchroeder, kindly refrain from grandstanding, especially in something as inappropriate as an image caption. Jon 04:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you refering to as grandstanding? The caption is better as it stands as shown above. Joshuaschroeder 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Your caption is appalling. As Jon suggests it is inappropriate as a picture caption, and I'd consider it inappropriate for an article.
  • "a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates" is not neutral point of view.
    • "deride" falls into Wikipedia's policy of suggested words to avoid. Who are you to decide that others "deride", "do not accept", "criticise", or whatever?
    • The sentence implies that all "plasma cosmologist deride", which is an incredible over-generalisation
    • There is no place for this statement on this page. This is not a crtique of plasma cosmologists' acceptance of black holes
    • The reference is placed at the end of the statement impying that you have a source confirming that black holes is "a concept derided by plasma cosmology advocates".

I this is an overgeneralization then we probably have to consider removing the picture all together as it is not informative about the subject of plasma cosmology in any case. Do all advocates of plasma cosmology believe this is a picture of z-pinch? Why should jets be features as an image if they are discussed in the article? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Picture captions, in general, are informative, and not a place for debate.

The informative capabilities of this picture are not clear to me, can you lay them out here? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "Some plasma cosmologists have suggested in a cursory, comparative fashion" is also not neutral, for exactly the same reasons.
    • It's over-general, dismissive, and your judgement
I think this is an accurate statement. Do you have any outline of a detail model for the jet? Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do."
  • Once again, this has no place in a picture caption, for the reasons above

That is a fact as illustrated by the very citation you make (see above comments). Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You dismiss statements, based on peer-reviewed articles, on your opinion

No, these are statements that you make which are not reflected in the peer-review article. That's you opinion, not mine. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • That the original caption mentioned "plasma cosmology suggest that such radiation is due to Birkeland currents", does not require your additional qualification.

It most certainly does because "plasma cosmology" doesn't "suggest" anything. Its advocates do. Can you point to an advocate that has said that this particular jet is due to Birkeland currents and has provided a model for it? If not, maybe we should remove the image altogether. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • As far I can tell, no article on any alledge pseudoscientific subject has this level of qualification added to an article, let alone a picture caption.

You might check out creationist cosmologies... though there are no pictures in that article. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia articles do NOT take a scientific point of view.

Nor does it take an "Ian Tresman" point of view which is what this picture caption is apparently doing in its original form. Joshuaschroeder 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

--Iantresman 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my point of view, the article is about the point of view of plasma cosmologists in general. Peratt is an example of a plasma cosmologist, and if you read his paper, he talks about double layers accelerating electrons to form Birkeland current that produce a Bennett pinch and release synchrotron radiation. --Iantresman 17:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, that paper however is not a citation to the claim made in the picture caption that plasma cosmology advocates say that M87's emission is due to this. Rather it says (in your words) that double layers accelerating electrons to form Birkeland current that produce a Bennett pinch and release synchrotron radiation. See the issue? Joshuaschroeder 18:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Pedantic. A bit like criticising a black hole for being responsible for M87's jet, when strictly it's gravity. --Iantresman 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you missed my point: Perrat never makes the claim that M87's jets are due to what the caption claims they are. Therefore your claim that this is an accurate representation of plasma cosmology advocate POV is suspect. I believe that it is your POV, but inclusion of such in the article would be known as POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Peratt writes (p.640, para.2): "This paper investigates the filamentary electric-current aspect of cosmic plasma. Section II describes the basic model: interactions among galactic-dimensioned field-aligned current filaments. [..] The Biot-Savart force law for filaments is discussed in Section IV, while synchrotron radiation from pinched filaments is given in Section V." (my emphasis).
And Section V contains the illustration of M87, as an example of a source of synchrotron radiation, from a Bennet pinch in a (field-aligned current) filament (another name for Birkeland currents), which contain double layers, that accelerate the electrons through the magnetic field, producing the radiation. --Iantresman 21:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Nowhere in the paper does Peratt claim that M87 is "an example of a source of synchrotron radiation from a Bennet pinch in a (field-aligned current) filament". That's a very generous reading. Offer a quote that substantiates your claim. Joshuaschroeder 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
You're joking, surely. Why do you think Peratt includes M87 in his paper, what do you think he is illustrating? I'll give you a clue from the Abstract:
"This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments. This model of the universe was inspired by the advent of three-dimensional fully electromagnetic particle simulations and their application to the study of laboratory z pinches. This study resulted in totally unexpected phenomena in the data post-processed from the simulation particle, field, and history dumps. In particular, when the simulation parameters were scaled to galactic dimensions, the interaction between pinched filaments led to synchrotron radiation whose emission properties were found to share the following characteristics with double radio galaxies and quasars: power magnitude, isophotal morphology, spectra, brightness along source, polarization, and jets."
And this from p.657:
".. the morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability of M87 are in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet jets."
In other words, the paper is about Birkeland currents (filaments) based on laboratory study of z-pinches (Bennett, or z-pinch), whose scaling to galactic sizes produces shows synchrotron radiation whose properties share characteristics with, amongst other objects, JETS (eg. M87's jet). And Peratt's conclusion is that M87's morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability are "in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet JETS" (a sheet jet is sheet beam, or JET).
That is not a "generous reading", that is SPECIFICALLY what the entire paper is about. --Iantresman 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
What we have here is a case of plasma cosmologists saying that radiation that is observed from jets is similar to radiation observed in the lab. What Peratt doesn't say is that this is the mechanism but rather that there are similarities. This is why the caption reads the way it does and why your version is misleading. Joshuaschroeder 12:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's see. Peratt writes that "This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments." And he finds that the observation evidence is consistent with laboratory evidence, and computer simulations. Now what inference do you think can be drawn from the results regarding a possible mechanism? --Iantresman 15:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, he didn't find consistency, he made claims that the radiation looked similar. Jumping to conclusions that Perrat has conclusively demonstrated the mechanism for M87 or that he has even claimed this to be the mechanism for M87 is not only premature, it is POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 19:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
So the (a) power magnitude, (b) isophotal morphology, (c) spectra, (d) brightness along source, (e) polarization, and (f) jets, are "in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs" of jets, and there is no inference to draw. And he has to "conclusively demonstrated the mechanism" to your satisfaction; and I presume that the "massive black holes" theory of jets "conclusively demonstrates"; I can't wait to see their laboratory results. --Iantresman 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Ian, you've wandered away from the text of the paper you are quoting. He does not demonstrate in that paper that any of the features a-f are comparable from M87 to his simulations. He claims that there are similarities only. Suddenly you are being hyper-derisive of supermassive black holes, which, I might point out, was claimed to not necessarily be the position of plasma cosmology advocates and I removed that statement from the caption. We need to represent things fairly. I think you want things represented to promote plasma cosmology. That's called POV-pushing. Joshuaschroeder 14:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that you have an uneven playing field. On the one hand, Peratt has shown similarities between observation and laboratory plasmas with several properties, and shown the maths that indicates that they scale to galactic proportions. And the inference is obvious. I am not aware of any papers published since that show Peratt to be incorrect. On the other hand, you have a supermassive black hole supporting your theory, of which there is NO SHED OF LABORTATORY EVIDENCE, and yet you're satisfied that is a workable mechanism.
We aren't here to entertain your fantasies about the applicability of so-called "laboratory evidence" to the question of whether your ideas of jets are correct or not. That's not the issue. The issue is whether you can point to someone who claims that M87's jet is described as due to what your version of the caption says it is due to. So far, you have just claimed that there is an "obvious inferenence" which is what the present caption outlines. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson predicted synchrotron radiation in 1950 based in PLASMA PHYSICS (peer reviewed), (independently predicted by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953), subsequently confirmed by Geoffrey R. Burbidge in 1956. Peratt provides a mechanism based on KNOWN laboratory PLASMA research, that further MATCH the observations over SEVERAL properties (peer reviewed), with no known peer reviewed evidence against, and no inference is drawn.
CAPITALIZING certain words does not do anything to make your POV more convincing. Nor have you addressed the fundamental issues I outlined above. Synchrotron radiation is not strictly related to plasma processes other than both being dependent in part of charge separation. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
To suggest that Peratt is not implying the obvious inference, is frankly, ridiculous. "This paper and its sequel investigate the observational evidence for a plasma universe threaded by Birkeland currents or filaments." [..] "the morphology, field configuration, polarization, and variability of M87 are in agreement with laboratory and simulation analogs of outwardly propagating sheet jets". --Iantresman 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Ridiculous by your POV standards, not by any citation you have provided. Repeating quotes of how Perrat has claimed that radiation is similar is how the caption presents the discussion. That's all I've been saying and so far all you've been saying is that you want to draw a greater conclusion from Perrat's work than he himself does. Similarity of radiation does not imply that Perrat is making a mechanistic claim. That is your doing, not his. Joshuaschroeder 18:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

JoshuaScroeder, I for one am fed up with your constant pedantic nit-picking and vandalism of this article. It is obvious to anyone able to think for themselves without dribbling what Peratt's paper is about. Do you see me/us picking large holes in the WMAP, CMB or Big Bang pages, tempting though it is? No. Why not? Because it is not a particularly polite, sensitive or civilised thing to do. Firstly, lacing this article (and others) with constant rebuffs and desrisory remarks makes the article read like a brawl at a Startrek convention and breaks the flow of the writing. One sentence in the introduction should be enough to warn people that this is an incomplete theory and is a minority science. Constantly underestimating the readers' intelligence by brow-beating them with this fact is childish at best.

The whole approach to plasma cosmology is laboratory- and observation-based, precisely because plasmas have many features that are scale-invariant, and therefore lab observations of plasmas can be applied to large-scale structure. This is in direct contrast to the approach of Big Bang apologists such as yourself, which seems to be about trying to "guess the mind of God" and shoe-horn the entire universe into a few mathematical formulae that "must be" how the universe works. If you are incapable of grasping this, that is not for the Wikipedia readership to have to put up with.

As with all science, just because a model can describe an observation, does not mean that the observation proves the model. In fact, in a related area, I challenge you, JoshuaSchroeder, to defend why the CMBR is proof, or at least a primary under-pinning, of the Big Bang model in particular.

Oh and another thing, if you insist on constantly vandalising this page, please at least get the grammar and spelling right. It makes it difficult to decide whether to correct you first before reverting  :-) Jon 07:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, Jon, but frankly find them lacking any substantive criticism. "It is obvious to anyone able to think for themselves" seems a very glib thing to write to me. If you have anything in particular to point out beyond what you have laid out above, please do so.
I'm not aware of how much mathematics/physics/astronomy you have studied in your life, and neither can you be sure of how much I have in mine. However, I can say that in my opinoin the plasma cosmology as it is currently represented on this page is far better, more NPOV, and greatly improved from what it was represented as a few weeks ago. It is important to put forward the explanations of plasma cosmology as well as the problems with the model as the same thing is done with the Big Bang article, the non-standard cosmologies article, and other articles on these topics.
As for the rest of your criticisms, I hope you will indulge a non-response. Issues that you have with the Big Bang should be taken up in that article space, not here. Joshuaschroeder 08:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Content of the page

I do agree that there needs to be more content to the page. Part of the issue I've always had with plasma cosmology advocates is that they don't make very many claims other than to say things like the Navier-Stokes Equations are inappropriately used for modeling, that the filamentary structure of clusters and superclusters is due to plasma processes and that there is an anti-gravity component that allows for a steady-state universe of sorts in certain double layers (though this argument I have never followed). Does this sound about right to the advocates for the things that describe plasma cosmology? Joshuaschroeder 08:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, the problem I have always had with Big Bang advocates, as I wrote on this page to RoadRunner a year or so ago, is their total blanketing of any attempt to describe PC in any detailed way. Part of the reason for this is that describing plasma cosmology involves describing the (perceived) weaknesses and differences of interpretation of the standard model from which it develops. This has always terrified Big Bang folks and is always leapt on, derided and censored by them. However it is still necessary to cover these differences, but an article where every second sentence is something like "...this is obviously patent nonsense because XYZ" is awful to read. So if you can kindly let us "advocates" get on with it, instead of tearing it down all the bloody time, that would be great. Don't forget, progress is slow when folks are also working, dragging up kids, writing theses and whatever else as well, and sometimes don't have the patience or mental fortitude to enter pedantic nit-picking debates over image captions when the article has, as you have just pointed out, much greater and more important gaps elsewhere.
I am not going to stop being an editor as that is not how Wikipedia works. I am here to help describe the subject, but there is no reason that you can't have me as an editor too. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
While I'm here, I'm not sure why you feel that an introduction to PC can't start with the premise that 99% of the visible matter in the universe exists in the plasma state. One of the main tenets of PC is that plasma cannot be treated, and does not behave, as an overall-neutral gas. So ignoring large-scale electrical and magnetic fields on the assumption that they eventually cancel out is 1. wrong, 2. no longer required, given the available computing power (ie. none) at the time that assumption had to be made. I hope that illuminates one of your earlier objections. Jon 09:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing particularly descriptive about this vis-a-vis plasma cosmology as anyone who studies astrophysics admits to the universe being mostly plasma. This seems off-topic. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
But (1) people reading the article probably haven't read anything about astrophysics, and even fewer have anything about plasma physics (2) It does not matter if it is accepted that the Universe contains a lot of plasma, it is still a fundamental point of fact (3) Just because Big Bang proponents also accept that the Universe contains plasma does not mean that the facts are mutually exclusive. --Iantresman 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out that we should try to describe plasma cosmology rather than worrying about whether it is important to note that most of the universe is plasma in the article. Joshuaschroeder 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This is precisely the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. That nearly all of the visible universe is plasma is one of the starting points. Instead of being an ancilliary fact as it is in BB models, it is one of the central tenets of PC. Jon 20:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
So you say, but what makes it ancilliary as opposed to a "starting point". One could easily say that reionization is fundamental to the Big Bang since it is what makes the universe transparent, but I'm not sure I understand your point -- especially in the context of the lack of information on why this is important provided in the article. I understand it Alfvén was fond of the matter-antimatter universe being the real culprit for the universe's dynamics (and since Baryon assymetry isn't even mentioned in the article, I wonder whether that is forgotten.) Anyway, please let me know specifically how it functions as a starting point. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree as well, but not under your editorial regime. You do not understand neutral point of view (NPOV) in the context of an encyclopedic entry. As you have pointed out yourself, even the entry on the Big Bang includes criticism, but where do we find it? In the first line? In the first paragraph? In the introductory perhaps? No, it is way down in section 5, and not a single qualification, rebuttle, reader-warning, or criticism of any sentence until then.
The difference being, of course, that the Big Bang is the mainstream theory while plasma cosmology is, at best, fringe science. Descriptions of ideas come contextualized, not based on the fancy and whims of their supporters. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean scientifically neutral thoughout. This is not an essay on the pros and cons of plasma cosmology. It is an inherently biased article from the point of view of plasma cosmology. If you go and look at nearly any pseudoscientific article, on Alchemy, Astrology, Atlantis, you will not find your kind of butchery and need to rebuff every statement. There is no need to add so much detail to a picture caption. Can you find any other picture caption on the whole of Wikipedia that finds it necessary to include rebuffs and alternative explanations?
If you think it bad, maybe you should ramp up the mediation process. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
More than that, none of those articles are explicitly formulated as opposed to mainstream science as plasma cosmology is. Lerner and friends are extremely argumentative to that effect and every good turn deserves another. Since most of plasma cosmology isn't about just developing ideas about the universe but rather attacking other ideas about the universe, it is fair that we look at it through the appropriate filters. That's NPOV. Relegating the counterpoints to some subordinate part of the article doesn't cut it because plasma cosmology itself is a counterpoint. Better groups of pages to compare this to would be creation science or Apollo moon landing hoax accusations. I am all for sympathetic descriptions, but right now we have absolutely no description of plasma cosmology. We just have a polemic against the Big Bang and the response that the Big Bang offers that polemic. To move ahead, let's describe plasma cosmology -- not just what it takes umbrage with. Joshuaschroeder 13:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
This is preposterous trolling. I cannot trust your ability to write NPOV if you are lumping PC in with creationism and absurd conspiracy theories. You also seem unable to separate ideas from personalities. People, even (especially?) physicists, are often prickly or odd. So what? Does that invalidate their ideas? Einstein believed in God. So what? Jon 20:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
You're all over the map here, accusing me of trolling, asking questions that I don't think have anything to do with reporting on plasma cosmology for the article. Please, we need to explain the subject rather than bicker. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Plasma Cosmology does not attack any other cosmology; counterpoints are not intrinsically attacking, any more than Republicanism attacks Liberal democracy, and to believe in God is intrinsically anti-science. Criticisms on the Big Bang are found on the Big Bang page. Indeed, the only hint at a criticism towards the Big Bang on the Plasma Cosmology page is in the introduction where it is written "The theory was first proposed and initially developed by plasma physicist Hannes Alfvén as an alternative to the two leading candidates in physical cosmology, the Big Bang". Not only is the statement false, but you wrote it! That you see Plasma Cosmology as an "attack" is very telling, and unfortunately the only analogy I can think of is Communism, where the mere existance of democracy, religion and free speech are seen as an attack on the leadership. --Iantresman 15:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I didn't write the statement about Alfvén. That was rather User:Joke137. As far as I know, this is true, in fact. Do you have a citation that states that it isn't? That Lerner wrote a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" is undeniable. Plasma cosmology advocates, as a general rule, don't shy away from attacking the entire mainstream conception of cosmology. That you are somehow claiming they are neutral toward the subject is strange to me. Note the polemics leveled by User:Jonathanischoice above. Joshuaschroeder 18:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Well what are you doing here editing the page, JoshuaScroeder? Attaching plasma cosmology. How are you different from anyone else with a point of view? Oh I forgot, you are, of course, right, and everyone else is wrong. I admire your attempts to keep Creationism and intelligent design on a leash, but do try to be a little more open minded. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I am editting this page because right now it needs some attention. It's in better shape now, but it could be improved. If you'd like to help, please join the conversation. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The Article History seems to show that you added the statement on 26th Oct, or at the very least, re-inserted it. Of course I can't find a reference to say that Alfvén did not set out not produce an alternative of the Big Bang, here the onus is on you to show that he did. There is certainly no mention of the Big Bang in Cosmical Electrodynamics (1963), although he did criticise the Big Bang later. Lerner's Big Bang Never Happened is a criticism of the Big Bang which mentions plasma cosmology, but that is not the same as Alfvén attribution. And I have no idea whether Jonathanischoice is a plasma cosmologist or whether he is just speaking for himself.
Just found this quote from Alfvén in Cosmic Plasma (1981): "Contrary to the very strong views of most cosmologists it seems highly appropriate to initiate a serious discussion about the validity of the big bang hypothesis. This is especially true in view of the fact that — as we have seen in the preceding chapters — in situ measurements of space plasmas have changed our views of cosmic physics, and that this change may include the approach to cosmology.
"Criticism of the big bang hypothesis should not be interpreted as an attempt to revive the continuous creation hypothesis. However, the advocates of this hypothesis (especially the Burbidge group) have presented several objections to the big bang hypothesis which deserve much more attention than they have received."--Iantresman 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a telling quote. I'm not attached one way or another to the point of why Alfvén developed the model, I "reinserted" the statement for no other reason than it is illustrative of the origins of the theory. As far as I know, it was done as a counter to both the steady-state and Big Bang cosmologies --> more in line with Einstein's original conception of an infinite universe. Do I have a cite for this? No. In fact, I don't even know when the term "plasma cosmology" was coined. I do know that Alfvén's original papers on the subject of cosmological implications of plasmas are much more mainstream and considered very uncontroversial compared to much of what now qualifies as plasma cosmology. I'll take the statement out as it isn't explanatory anyway. Joshuaschroeder 20:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If you insist on wanting to edit this article, why don't you familiarise yourself with the science first? You keep asking for citations, which means you obviously are not familiar with the research. Much of the interesting stuff (such as Alfven's original papers) is in IEEE transactions and other non-online journals, which means you might have to actually visit a library. There's also Peratt's reprints available at Inatresman's link below, which form a good starting point. Jon 21:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I resent the insinuation that I'm not famliarised with "the science". I have been active in the field and have given talks on plasma physics with respect to my research on reionization. Asking for citations is a normal way here on Wikipedia of working through the issues surrounding our discussions. I've read Peratt's papers, Alfvén's papers, and Lerner's horrendous excuse for a popular-level book, but I see many claims on this page that I think are unsubstantiated. I'm willing to entertain other points of view, but I think some points of view are not representative of the plasma cosmology "community" (if such a thing can be said to exist). Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I've just noticed that on 26th Oct, you added the Pseudoscience category tag to the this article; I'm sure that Alfvén, who helped develop plasma cosmology (peer reviewed), and won Nobel Prize for developing magnetohydrodynamics will be delighted with your opinion of his work.
--Iantresman 09:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I Removed it. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think conjuring up the ghosts of dead scientists is likely to aid in editing the article. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
What a bizarre thing to say. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding plasma processes in the Universe, ask yourself whether the interplanetary medium is described gravitationally, or magnetohydrodynamically? No one is saying that gravity is insignificant, but neither are plasma dynamics. I recommend that you read some more of Peratt's papers which are amply supported by laboratory evidence and lots of maths. --Iantresman 09:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should ask yourself whether it may just be possible that other astrophysicists have considered plasma processes in the Universe. That's the major point: there is a distinguishing feature between plasma cosmology and normal astrophysics that is at the level of applicability of phenomena that may or may not be applicable (or even real). Simply claiming that MHD is important and walking away is a non-starter. Joshuaschroeder 13:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Precisely. in PC plasma processes created the large scale filamentary structure of the universe, without the need for dark matter, superstrings or any other imaginary mechanism. Jon 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
"superstrings"? Are you trying to refer to string theory which has nothing to do with large scale structure? Or are you talking about something else? I added the section on dark matter in the article and would love to see how plasma cosmology deals with all the evidence, but so far I've just seen things on velocities and nothing on lensing, correlation functions, etc. Joshuaschroeder 22:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Source please

Could someone source this ... "Plasma cosmology has neither the explanatory power nor the theoretical infrastructure yet to explain such jets as fully as the mainstream models do." Otherwise this is an opinion and borders on "original research". JDR

Maybe |this guy can help. Jon 01:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure: consider the fact that there only abstract that uses the term "plasma cosmology" in service is an article by Perrat in Sky and Telescope Magazine. There hasn't been anything published with regard to explaining or offering a theoretical infrastructure for plasma cosmology jets. Plasma cosmology does not represent a research program in cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 22:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't want to do orignal research (eg., consider this) ... get a citation ....
Just because something isn't published in a journal does not mean there isn't a theoretical infrastructure ... Sincerely, JDR
You won't find many "plasma cosmology" articles by searching for "plasma cosmology", just as many articles on the Big Bang are not tagged "Big Bang Cosmology" or even "Standard Cosmology". Example of sources that mention jets, from a plasma cosmology point of view, and which arguable demonstrate that this is more than an ad hoc suggestion, include:
--Iantresman 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Proving a negative cannot be done -- it's not original research, it's a fact that there are no journal articles. Actually you find a lot of abstracts that include that term "Big Bang cosmology" -- roughly 1889. That's well more than the 5 that show up for Plasma cosmology. All of Ian's referenced sites do not claim to have theoretical or explanatory infrastructure for jets. Therefore the claim is well cited. Joshuaschroeder 01:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
How can you say that, that there are no journal articles on jets and plasma cosmology, when the references I gave include sections on just that. Your agenda is clear. Claim there is no research, then claim it is not peer reviewed, then claim it doesn't include enough detail, then claim it is insignificant, then deny it all together.
You did exactly the same on my additions to redshift where you denied that the Wolf Effect could produce a redshift that is identical to the Doppler redshift. I found three peer-reviewed references that said that it could. I further emailed each author who CONFIRMED the same. And yet you still claimed that the Wolf Effect could not not, contrary to at least three specialists in their field. --Iantresman 08:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"Sections" on jets in the above papers includes a section in Perrat's papers and Bostick's papers. However, while both papers are comparative in their descriptions of laboratory processes and jets, neither presents a coherent theory or mechanism for jets that is predictive like the mainstream model (see above discussion for more on mainstream models). This isn't to criticize the plasma work done -- indeed there are plasma processes at work in jets -- only the predictive and theoretical work for only plasma processes being the mechanism isn't available in any of these papers. Keep redshifts on the redshifts page, unless you have a problem with the section here. We know that these effects you name are frequency dependent -- by the very admission of the process mechanisms. Joshuaschroeder 09:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just as I said. You claim there is no research, then claim it is not peer reviewed, then claim it doesn't include enough detail, then claim it is insignificant, then deny it all together. Now you claim that it is not a "coherent theory" (OPINION), does not present a mechanism (UTTERLY FALSE), and isn't "predictive" (FALSE). Just to substantiate, the mechanism is based on standard plasma physics as tested, observed and confirmed in the laboratory. Regarding predictive nature of plasma cosmology, I will point out that:

  • Birkeland PREDICTED plasma is space, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.
Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.
This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.
No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.
  • Birkeland PREDICTED field-aligned currents, which Alfvén promoted, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.
Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.
This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.
No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.


  • Alfvén PREDICTED synchrotron radiation in space, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED by satellite.
Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.
This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.
No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.


  • Alfvén PREDICTED large scale filamentary structure of the universe, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.
Incorrect. The filamentary structure has never been shown to be similar to plasma filaments. This is the main contention of plasma cosmology and is where the mainstream cosmology and plasma cosmology diverge.
No, your contention that the filamentary structure is not similar to plasma filaments is bizarre. What you meant is that the "mainstream community" denies that it is similar to plasma filaments.
You haven't shown any evidence that the similarity has been measured in anything more than placing two pictures side by side.
  • Alfvén PREDICTED magnetohydrodynamic waves, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.
Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.
This objection is irrelevant. Alfven formulated magnetohydrodynamics and predicted MHD waves. Of course this is plasma cosmology. Is this a wind-up?
MHD != plasma cosmology.


  • Alfvén PREDICTED critical ionization velocity, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.
Irrelevent. This is not plasma cosmology and is accepted by the mainstream community.
This objection is irrelevant. You seem to imply that the "mainstream community" has exclusive access to this finding. Plasma cosmology uses this finding as well.
No, what is implied is that this source neither supports nor denies plasma cosmology as it is accepted by the mainstream community.


  • Alfvén PREDICTED jet streams, based on recognised laboratory experiments and mechanisms, and subsequently CONFIMRED.
Jet streams? As described where and in what fashion?

And as for plasma cosmology failing to make further predictions, I note the following from plasma cosmology papers appearing in the 1986 IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (peer reviewed):

  • "The model predicts..."; ".. we derive from this hypothesis a prediction of the.. "; "The prediction that.. "; "Our model provides two clear-cut and testable predictions.. "; "In the week after the initial submission of the present paper, these predictions were confirmed.." in Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Scale Invariants, and the Fundamental Constants, by Lerner
  • "... predict that a plasma pinch (a plasma focus) can perhaps achieve..."; "Figs. 13-15 predict that... " in What Laboratory-Produced Plasma Structures Can Contribute to the Understanding of Cosmic Structures Both Large and Small, by Bostik
  • "The ability of the model based on an inhomogeneous field of form Bo(r) oc llr to predict both the P -1 spectra... "; "Thus two types of behavior are predicted..."; "These predictions are what is observed"; in Magnetic Vortex Tubes in Astrophysics, by Browne
  • "A direct comparison of the simulation predictions is possible..."; in Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The of Systems of Galaxies, Peratt
  • "Application .. leads to the prediction of ..." in Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, Alfvén
  • "... can be used to predict... " in "General Bohm and Langmuir Conditions for a Strong Double Layer in Space Plasmas", Williams
  • "It may be easy to test this prediction..." in "Plasma Processes Driven by Current Sheets and Their Relevance to the Auroral Plasma, Singh
  • "... plasma properties with inductively driven ion flows corresponding to the quantum "supercurrents" are predicted..., " in "Hall Magnetohydrodynamics and Its Applications to Laboratory and Cosmic Plasma", Witalis
  • "... the theory based on ion beam instabilities predicts... "; "... This prediction should provide an experimental test of the theory." "A Review of Broad-Band Electrostatic Waves in the Magnetotail", Grabbe
Quoting papers where they use the word "prediction" doesn't say anything about the predictability of points specific to plasma cosmology that are rejected by mainstream science. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you still claim it is a pseudoscience, and Alfvén a pseudoscientist? --Iantresman 12:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Alfvén was a mainstream scientists who had some good ideas and some bad ideas, just like all mainstream scientists who do pioneering work. I haven't ever claimed that Alfvén was a pseudoscientist. However, it isn't true that one must accept all his conclusions about the applicability of plasma processes. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
You have also lost sight of the point that the caption is making. There is no model that has been proposed by plasma cosmology advocates that explains or outlines a theory for the M87 jets. There have been comparisons made, but that is different. Until you understand the basic difference between comparison and explanatory theory, there is no reason to continue this discussion. Joshuaschroeder 14:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's not that easy. You meant there is no reason for you to continue this discussion. The correct spelling is irrelevant. Jon 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

On explanatory theory, having an explanation for something does not necessarily mean you have the truth, if one's observations contradict it. For example, there is (by definition) no observational evidence for dark matter, only an inference that it must be there rather than admit the density is out by 2 orders of magnitude. This is where PC and the "mainstream community" really diverge. Anomolous galaxy rotation curves and supercluster motions can be explained using HMHD (cf. Peratt) without having to resort to dark matter when (in PC) you assume that visible matter is plasma and therefore moves primarily under the influence of magnetic and electric fields on large scales. Peratt's simulation work is important because the motions can be accounted for without having to invent the "missing" matter and energy. It simply isn't missing. Jon 21:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that explanatory != truth. Your comments about dark matter are provacative and highly debatable POV ("no observational evidence"), but they failed the major point that I made which is that the evidence isn't just from velocity dispersions and rotation curves. Joshuaschroeder 13:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Article is protected

Page is protected as requested. Editors involved will eventually have to come to terms with the fact that there are conflicting POVs at play and that unless you stick to describing the controversy rather than asserting a POV as fact, the editwarring will continue. Civility, no personal attacks and patience are needed to be able to achieve NPOV in these cases. Drop me a line when you thing you are ready to resume editing. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 07:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

So can we get some advice on point of views? We clearly have a disagreement about whose point of view is correct, and which neutral point of view is more consistent with Wikipedia? --Iantresman 08:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Rather that trying to portray a specific POV in the aritcle. you can consider describing all POVs instead. From WP:NPOV:
The only other important consideration is that sources of comparable reputability might contradict. In that case the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches of the same topic exist on the same page: work for balance, that is: divide space describing the opposing viewpoints according to reputability of the sources. And, when available, give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner.
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 10:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there is controversy that should be reported. I am more than willing to work with others who disagree with mainstream science. However, as it currently stood, no one was offering any ideas beyond the caption I made which is NPOV compared to the caption that is currently avaiable. I look forward to hearing from other editors. Joshuaschroeder 15:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't it depend on the subject of the article? For example, an article on 'astronomical jets' may well mention several different theories (points of view). But an article about the Plasma Cosmology theory of astronomical jets is mainly concerned with explaining the Plasma Cosmology point of view. To balance the article, it is necessary to mention that there are other theories, but surely not to discuss the matter in a picture caption and the article introduction?
You haven't demonstrated that "plasma cosmology" has any "theory" of astronomical jets other than showing that they share similar shapes to things seen in labs. To that end, maybe the entire picture should be removed altogether. After all, jets aren't considered a part of mainstream cosmology, why are they a part of plasma cosmology? Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Another example, an article on 'medicine' would do exactly as you say, highting different points of view. But an article on 'homeopathy' has its own intrinsic point of view, which must have priority over other points of view, regardless of whether it is right or wrong, or whether there are more reputable sources. Once the article has summarised and explained the point of view of the subject of the article, THEN you would mention criticisms. And if I included a picture of a homeopathic remedy mentioning that homeopaths might prescribe it for colds, then I surely don't need to discss this in the picture caption. Indeed, looking at the article on homeopathy, there is no discussion or criticism on it until Section 5.
So I'm not saying that we don't mention all points of view, just that we don't do it in a picture caption or the article introduction? --Iantresman 15:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think there is a good case to be made for removing the picture entirely. It isn't about cosmology but rather about jets. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

As the article in itself doesn't seem to cover the question of these jets at all, the most simple solution would be, to drop the picture. --Pjacobi 15:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Joshuaschroeder 16:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem adding information on the plasmas cosmology view of jets to the article. That M87 is relevant can be seen in the Abstract of C.E.R Bruce's article, The role of electrical discharges in astrophysical phenomena, which says "Some properties of electrical discharges are described, including rate of propagation, magnetic fields, the pinch effect, and plasma jets.
This isn't expressly plasma cosmology. We know that plasma is involved in astrophysical jets. That does not make the subject plasma cosmology. We've already gone through and removed the instances of non-plasma cosmology in this article. Why should we introduce other tangential arguments that are accepted by the mainstream?
These phenomena and objects are identified as being due to or characterized by electrical discharges: solar flares, the variation in long-period variables, the filamentary structure of the Crab Nebula, novae, radio galaxies, barred spirals, quasars, and the jet of M 87." (My emphasis). Electric discharges are plasma filaments.
Why is it that plasma cosmology advocates cannot seem to stick to the issue at hand? This is a review article of all plasma processes in disparate phenomena. It does not explain the position, if any exist, that plasma cosmology has about jets. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
That jets are relevant to the article can be seen from the title Peratt's article "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets". (My emphasis).
That, I agree, is the only article that addresses the subject from a perspective of plasma cosmology. As the above discussions explain, however, the current caption does not do justice to Perrat's article's position. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
A Web page on the Plasma Cosmology site, Thunderbolts, mentions "The jet of the active galaxy M87 is composed of hot plasma that is constricted to a filament thousands of light years long by the electromagnetic forces of the electric current flowing along its axis."
It seems quite relevant to have an image of a jet such as M87, with a decription that "M87's Energetic Jet. The glow is caused by synchrotron radiation resulting from high energy electrons spiraling along magnetic field lines. Some plasma cosmologists compare to the structure to a pinched plasma filament as seen in the laboratory."

--Iantresman 16:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

That's kind of a bad resource, Ian -- perhaps more of an Electric universe (concept) issue rather than plasma cosmology.

I submit that there has been no case made for including information on jets in this article. Joshuaschroeder 17:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology includes anything to do with astrophysical plasmas, whether accepted by mainstream astronomy or not. Just because mainstream astronomy accepts some of the ideas introduced by plasma cosmologist Hannes Alfvén, that does not rule them out of this article. That the Universe is 99.9% plasma by volume, is one of the basic tenants of plasma cosmology which just happens to be accepted by mainstream astronomers too. Alfvén developed magnetohydrodynamics, and won the Nobel Prize for it; you can't rule it out of plasma cosmology because astronomers use it too. For an outline of plasma cosmology, I suggest you read Anthony Peratt's article called Plasma Cosmology (PDF) --Iantresman 21:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
No, plasma cosmology does not include anything to do with astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology is known as a non-standard cosmology. It is not an overarching research program. Furthermore, plasma cosmology doesn't just accept anything whether it is accepted or not, it only accepts things that the people who support plasma cosmology support. It isn't inclusivist because, for example, it rejects Velikovskian notions.
I'm glad you pointed out Perrat's article on the subject Ian, but you will notice nowhere does Peratt claim that jets are a part of cosmology, nor does he claim that solar prominences are a part of cosmology. Maybe this is the problem, there are people like you who are interpretting Plasma Cosmology as something more than simply a non-standard cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 23:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I gave you Peratt's article to show that the most basic plasma phenomenon are discussed. I've already given you a reference to another article by Peratt (a plasma cosmologist), whose title is "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets". (My emphasis). --Iantresman 23:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, let's break this down:
  1. Just because someone discussed basic phenomena in a work about a subject doesn't mean that the basic phenomena are part of the subject. For example, basic physics are part and parcel to physical cosmology. That doesn't mean that basic physics are a part of basic cosmology. We can refer to basic physics in defining physical cosmology, but basic physics isn't part of physical cosmology. Similarly plasma physics is referred to in Perrat's discussion of plasma cosmology, but plasma physics isn't part of plasma cosmology. We can refer to plasma physics and mainstream astrophysical plasmas in the article, but these subjects are not part of the subject.
  2. Just because Perrat wrote an aritcle on "Evolution of the plasma universe" and included information on some phenomena in the universe such as quasars, jets, and radio galaxies doesn't mean that those subjects are part of plasma cosmology any more than the phenomena of radio galaxies, quasars, and jets are part of mainstream physical cosmology. One can describe something in context or use a context as a justification, but this article is not indicative of a cosmological model.
Therefore, it is much more apparent to me that jets do not belong in this article. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
And here is yet another quote, from an already-mentioned reference, to Winston Bostick's article that appeared in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, (Dec. 1986) featuring articles by plasma cosmologists Hannes Alfvén, Anthony Peratt, Per Carlqvist, Eric Lerner, and other, titled "What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small" in which he writes: "the Birkeland aurora filaments, are expected to play a role in the formation of phenomena including galaxies, solar flares, comet tails and giant galactic jets." (my emphasis).
You understand, of course, that solar flares and comet tails have nothing to do with cosmology. There's little reason to think that jets do either. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
"Birkeland aurora filament" is another name for a Birkeland current. "are expected to play a role" means may cause, participate, influence, etc. "giant galactic jet" means jet, and an example of which is M87 (so says New Scientist). --Iantresman 23:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
New Scientist is hardly an authorative resource. Joshuaschroeder 01:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate scope

It seems natural to me that plasma cosmology only encompasses cosmological issues. There may be some discussion of where cosmology stops and astrophysics starts, and there may be some discussion of what elements should be included that are both plasma based and commonly accepted, but if the phrase "plasma cosmology" is to be used to refer to non-cosmology, then that needs to be made clear in the intro. It seems equally clear that jets are astrophysics and not cosmology. Do you see it any different, Ian? --Art Carlson 17:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you be surprised if I said yes? Plasma cosmology is to do with processes that form various aspects of the universe. One difference from standard cosmology, is that plasma cosmology does not necessarily include a "start" like the Big Bang. Consequently, processes that form galaxies, stars, and jets, and ALL astromical processes are part of plasma cosmology. Since plasma cosmologists suggest that black holes are not part of the make-up of jets, and they have mentioned certain plasma processes that they feel contribute towards the formation of jets, then I think it is very relevant. And just because mainstream science already accepts many aspects of plasma physics, does not rule it out of plasma cosmology. Alfvén developed MHD and used it as part of plasma cosmology. Perhaps Eric Lerner will put us straight. --Iantresman 21:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
So you are saying that the term "cosmology" in "plasma cosmology" has a meaning different from the standard usage, namely (from Physical cosmology) "the study of the large-scale structure of the universe". Can you say where you draw the line between plasma cosmology and plasma physics? If not at astrophysical jets, then at main sequence stars? Or the ionosphere? Or lightning? --Art Carlson 22:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
That's my understanding. Because of the scaleability of plasmas, from the microscropic to the macroscopic, it's all relevant. But I could be wrong. Again, I'll wait for Eric Lerner to clarify. --Iantresman 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Gravity is also scaleable as it affects planetary systems as well as galaxy clusters. Does this mean that you would consider mainstream cosmology as involving Kepler's Laws in the Solar System? Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
That's a question for mainstream cosmology. --Iantresman 10:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
So are you saying no comparisons can be drawn? Joshuaschroeder 12:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Comparisons and analogies can of course be drawn, but whether they are relevant in concluding what plasma comology includes, I don't know. As I've said, I am happy to wait for Eric Lerner to clarify the situation. --Iantresman 13:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know that we should let Eric Lerner be the final authority on how the English language is used. In Wikipedia, the natural meaning of terms should be used when possible, i.e. "plasma cosmology" should be cosmology in which plasma plays an (unusually) important role. If you want to write an article on "plasma astrophysics" and name it "plasma cosmology", I would want to see an authoritative reference for that usage. --Art Carlson 17:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If I look at the Wikipedia entry on Cosmology, I see a very general description, "the study of the universe". Then if I look at Physical cosmology, I get another more specific definition, "the study of the large-scale structure of the universe". And likewise, Big Bang cosmology, means something similar. I feel that since Eric Lerner would call himself a plasma cosmologist, he can specify that it includes anything that he wants, irrespective of how other cosmologists might use the term. And as long the article specifies what it includes, then I can't see that it matters that much.

My problem with lumping stuff under "plasma astrophysics", is that there is some which is gererally accepted, and stuff that is not. Where do I place "plasma circuits", "critical ionization velocity", "exploding double layers"? I would argue that "plasma cosmology" is a fair place to summarise them? --Iantresman 19:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This is yet another pedantic strawman argument. Mainstream cosmology uses black holes as the engines of AGN activity, including jets, X-Ray emission and radio lobes. PC uses plasma processes instead of black holes to explain the same phenomenon. One of the major points of PC is that because plasma scales so well from lab to superclusters, you don't need to invent any exotic phenomena or "new" physics to explain large-scale and cosmic phenomena. This is because PC contends that they behave accurding to the same physics as laboratory, atmospheric and solar-system phenomena. I find it dizzying that trained physicists find this so difficult to grasp, let alone accept as possible. Jon 21:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That mainstream cosmologists rely on microphysical processes is indeed a strawman argument. That PC uses plasma processes is fine, but the distinction needs to be meaningful. Incredulity concerning black holes is perhaps a different subject from incredulity about the Big Bang -- or is it general relativity itself that is objected to? Joshuaschroeder 22:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
This is typical of your responses. There is no incredulity about black holes, relativity or gravitation. The explanation involves plasma processes preventing black holes from forming. You obviously don't know that, and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are ignorant of PC material, and yet here you are, seemingly on some sort of bizarre crusade, trying to put the onus on others to explain themselves in pedantic detail. Why should I or anyone else have to explain it to you, when the material is available in libraries both online and off? There is no bizarre conspiracy here, no holocaust deniers, no alien abductees, no Creationists, no attempt to link PC with human mythology or archaeology, or whatever other strange preconceptions you might have. I seriously think you're in the wrong battle. Jon 22:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Dear Jon, as a trained plasma physicist, I assure you that there is nothing trivial about scaling phenomena over 18 orders of magnitude. Look at the article on plasma scaling for two distinct and incompatible ways to do this. --Art Carlson 15:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand, but the few properties needed in PC models developed by Lerner and Peratt do scale well to at least 10^14 or more, eg. nr, density x distance is constant. See Lerner's 1986 Vortex filaments paper on large scale structure. - Jon
The models must be assuming that some quantities are unimportant and can be ignored in the scaling. What quantities are these, and why are you so sure they can be varied over many orders of magnitude without making any difference? --Art Carlson 17:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

There's an interesting discussion of scale invariants in Lerner, Magnetic Vortex Filaments, universal scale invariants and fundamental constants IEEE-TPS, 1986 14:6 p690. Three are identified in astrophysical bodies from stars to clusters, covering a range of about 1015

  • J/m2 (angular momentum over squared mass), which restated as m = v2R/G (assuming gravitational equilibrium, G is grav constant, R is the specific radius) gives a scale-constant for velocities v = aG/p, given that J = avmR where a is the inertial distribution. This holds across the range within a factor of 2 or so
  • The product of particle density (n) and radius (R)
  • The masses of constituent objects relate to their average separating distances by m/r2, and is about 0.4 - 2 x 1019/cm2.

Lerner then goes on to propose a plasma model for these relationships starting from Alfven's use of force-free vortex filaments (in his 1981 book Cosmic Plasma) which can explain large scale filamentary structure. There are also some surprising relationships with fundamental constants. An interesting paper. Peratt also discusses Kirchoff's laws that apply across similar scales in Peratt, Particle beams and electric currents in the plasma universe LPB 1988 6:3 p471 . Jon 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the information is worth adding, clarifying, or referencing the material on the page on Plasma scaling? --Iantresman 10:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Plasma_cosmology/Archive_2&oldid=499652166"