Plasma Cosmology & the Electric Universe

roosh

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe? In particular where it stands at the moment, whether it is gathering momentum or whether its claims are being falsified or confirmed, if it is on the decline, or what's the story?

I understand that it is definitely not mainstream at the moment, but I came across it when I was looking up stuff on String Theory and the Universe. I should point out that my level of scientific "training" doesn't extend beyond junior cert science, so I was mainly searching for documentaries. I found quite a few on string theory and the universe but I came across a couple of documentaries with regard to Plasma Cosmology. It certainly sounds like a very logical and interesting theory, so I was wondering if anyone knew anything about it.

Basically, I just wanted to get other peoples understanding and impression of it, as I have been going through google and youtube for info. I also just wanted to get an idea of where it is at at the present moment in time.

Much appreciated

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just wondering if anyone knows anything about Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe? In particular where it stands at the moment, whether it is gathering momentum or whether its claims are being falsified or confirmed, if it is on the decline, or what's the story?

AFAIK it was an attempt to explain the formation of galaxies / heavy elements in the days before anyone had managed to measure CMBR fluctuations.

It seems to be a result of banging the numbers together in every possible way until someone takes a measurement that matches one of the ways.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

AFAIK it was an attempt to explain the formation of galaxies / heavy elements in the days before anyone had managed to measure CMBR fluctuations.

It seems to be a result of banging the numbers together in every possible way until someone takes a measurement that matches one of the ways.

cheers for the reply. Is it dead now, do you know or what is the story?

again, I have a very basic knowledge, but from what I was reading it suggested that many of the phenomena observed in the universe, such as the sun's coronal heating, spiral galaxies and galactic redshifts could be explained using plasma cosmology without the requirement for such things as dark matter, dark energy and black holes.

Some of the phenomena had been reproduced in lad experiments such as filamentary structures of galaxies, also supercomputer simulations that depicted the formation of spiral galaxies had been displayed.

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

the sun's coronal heating, spiral galaxies and galactic redshifts could be explained using plasma cosmology without the requirement for such things as dark matter, dark energy and black holes.

I recently read 'The big bang theory', by Simon Singh.

He gives a good account of the development of the current astrological model over the last couple of thousand years, how each development of a new more accurate model was resisted for a generation by scientists stuck to the old model. New observations which didn't fit the old model were hammered in with fudge factors.

(Even Einstein was guilty of this - after his theory of general relativity was completed, he realized that it didn't fit with an eternal static universe, being the model of the day. So he fudged relativity with a correction factor to make a static universe possible. Though he seems to be one of very very few willing to change their view when the evidence stacked up against it.)

But then you come to the epilogue. Funnily enough, it seems that current cosmologists are just blithly fudgeing the numbers to make room for observations that don't fit into the model.

As far as I can make out, 'dark matter' is just matter that isn't on fire - not really that much of a stretch.

Black holes are (probably) caused by the gravitational collapse of galaxies. Again, this fits just fine with relativity.

Dark energy, however, seems to be the biggest fudge factor ever - its the 'we can't figure out whats causing this, we can't see any reason - it must be dark energy' arguement.

The current model is a universe made up of 76% dark energy

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

I recently read 'The big bang theory', by Simon Singh.

He gives a good account of the development of the current astrological model over the last couple of thousand years, how each development of a new more accurate model was resisted for a generation by scientists stuck to the old model. New observations which didn't fit the old model were hammered in with fudge factors.

(Even Einstein was guilty of this - after his theory of general relativity was completed, he realized that it didn't fit with an eternal static universe, being the model of the day. So he fudged relativity with a correction factor to make a static universe possible. Though he seems to be one of very very few willing to change their view when the evidence stacked up against it.)

But then you come to the epilogue. Funnily enough, it seems that current cosmologists are just blithly fudgeing the numbers to make room for observations that don't fit into the model.

As far as I can make out, 'dark matter' is just matter that isn't on fire - not really that much of a stretch.

Black holes are (probably) caused by the gravitational collapse of galaxies. Again, this fits just fine with relativity.

Dark energy, however, seems to be the biggest fudge factor ever - its the 'we can't figure out whats causing this, we can't see any reason - it must be dark energy' arguement.

The current model is a universe made up of 76% dark energy

the above seems to be a main sticking point with Plasma Cosmologists, the fact that the number of observable "predictions" that fit in with the current theory are only marginally bigger than the number of fudge factors that are required to accommodate them. It is being likened to the Ptolmaic system where mathematical modelling was the driving force behind the view of the cosmos, with observations being shoehorned to fit, or rather more and more fudge factors, or epicycles as they were termed, being added to ensure that the contemporary model maintained its accuracy.

With regard to Black Holes and Dark Matter, from what I can gather (although I am no mathematician), the former is actually precluded by the Einstein's General theory of relativity. In fact, it is claimed that Einstein hated the idea of Black Holes and that they didn't fit with his model at all. Forgive me if this isn't the right page, but this guy sets it out fairly clearly on his website (more clearly for mathematicians):
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/

Now, I have no doubt that this guy will be denounced as a crackpot, which appears to be the only real discourse that is offered against proponents of the theory. Unfortunately, my knowledge of mathematics isn't good enough to decipher much of the stuff on it, which is why I am trying to get peoples opinions. It certainly sounds like it is worthy of investigation if there is any truth to it.

As for Black Holes and Dark Matter, both are, as far as I can gather, unobservable by definition, with the characteristics of a Black Hole being a single point mass and an event horizon, where no light or matter or anything can escape. Both can only be inferred from gravitational effects on objects around them.

As for the mysterious Dark Energy which, as you say, makes uo more that 70% of the universe, but again is merely a hypothetical construct based on mathematical modelling, with an inordinate number of fudge factors.


On the other hand, although Plasma Cosmology has not made a large number of predictions with regard to the universe - this is claimed to be, in-part due to the lack of funding for research - however, it appears to me, that a lot of the observations that supposedly prove the validity of the current mainstream model, can equally be attributed to a Plasma Model, without recourse to such fudge factors (or Epicylces) as Dark Energy, Dark Matter and Black Holes. In fact, it is claimed (or apparently it is well known) that 99.9999% of the matter that is observable in the universe, is actually in its Plasma State.


One of the big criticisms being levelled at the current mainstream model, is its over reliance on mathematical modelling, where models are created based on mathematics, and then the evidence is interpreted according to that paradigm, with contradicting evidence being accommodated by the inclusion of a new, previously unthought of fudge factor. While I understand that it is common for scientific theories to change along with evidence, it appears that this is not exactly the case with the current model. It appears that the only manner in which it changes is through the addition of further untestable unobservable (by apparent definition) phenomena.

It just seems to me to be common sense that it is worth looking into a model that purports to deal with the 99.9999% of the universe that we know is there, and that is ultimately provable and testable. Perhaps, then it would be worth moving onto the 96%, as of yet, untestable universe.


The main problem is, that I unfortunately lack the expertise to verify any of the claims, however I am looking into them as much as I can, and from what I read, the only claims being made against Plasma Cosmology are ad hom attacks on its proponents, which for me merely adds weight to the concept.

roosh

Another unfortunate thing is that some, not all, but much of the easily accessible stuff (to the lay person) is only available on youtube. Although there are a number of books out there, I haven't had time to research them.

This is one of only a couple of videos that I have seen on the thing. It appears to be mostly retired scientists, or engineers, that are involved in it. It is claimed that those in the mainstream, despite whatever misgivings they have about the current model (that is not to suggest there are any or that there are many), they are somewhat tied by the fear that they will lose funding if they voice their concerns. That is why they must wait til they retire. The engineers of course could be making some kind of "power grab" to fling their own discipline into the headlines. If this is the case, then they are making some interesting claims.

Here is one of the vids I saw on youtube. There are 5 parts to it I think. Part 5 was broken up until a couple of days ago, but it appears to be fixed now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

marco_polo

The main reason why it is hard to find reputable scientists debunking Plasma Cosmology is that mainstream science did not find it a credible theory many years ago and has long since moved on.

The claims by proponents of PC, of oppression by mainstream science, to my mind sounds very similar to the objections made by creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#lerner

Plasma cosmology
In 1991, Eric Lerner published the book The Big Bang Never Happened, in which he asserted several problems with the standard BBT and promoted an alternative theory, based on plasma physics. According to that model, the universe is infinitely old and undergoes cycles (similar to the quasi-steady-state theory of Hoyle et al., see 4a). In plasma cosmology, electromagnetism is the dominant force for galaxy and large scale structure formation, rather than gravity.

Lerner's arguments against the BBT fall well short of convincing. He claims that current ideas of structure formation (small density fluctuations grow through gravitational interactions with their local environment) can not explain the observed large-scale structure of the universe. This conveniently ignores computer simulations which demonstrate the ability of this mechanism to generate structure that statistically matches observations (see 2f). He also denies the existence of dark matter and dark energy, parroting the line that these are epicycles added onto the theory when it failed to meet expectations. This is clearly not true for either dark matter or dark energy. He also asserts that the values for the amount of dark matter are in constant flux. This ignores the fact that early measurements had relatively large error bars due to small sample sizes. As the available data has increased and precision improved, the values from a variety of methods have converged nicely. Lerner also points out that dark matter has yet to be directly detected on Earth, again ignoring the fact that particle accelerators and other direct detection methods have not yet achieved the energies or sensitivities thought necessary for a positive detection. The list goes on and on.

At the same time, Lerner's claims about the ability of the plasma cosmology model to describe the observations correctly are simply wrong. Ned Wright has written a rebuttal of many of Lerner's arguments, which can be found on the page Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened". It is not always directly on point, but contains enough information to make it clear that Lerner's arguments are simply unfounded. Lerner has replied to Wright's critique, but his arguments did not improve -- and he simply ignores several of Wright's arguments.

Like many creationists, Lerner also has a bad habit of citing scientific articles in support of his case when, in fact, they actually run contrary to his claims. A nice example for this is the article by Scranton et al (2003) which found evidence for the existence of dark energy by measuring the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. Lerner ignores the conclusions of the paper, claiming that it demonstrates a disagreement between BBT and observations. The ISW measurements are indeed inconsistent with a flat, matter-only universe, but match up very well with what would be expected from the Lambda CDM universe. Indeed, this measurement was an important check differentiating between the two models. Lerner plays a similar game with predictions regarding the sizes of voids in the local large scale structure. These are predicted to be much larger for a Lambda CDM universe than a matter-only universe and Lerner points to the latter as being in conflict with the data while ignoring that the former matches quite well.

Also see

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

In essence:

Plasma physics is a well established useful field of study.
Plasma Cosomolgy while not immediately dismissed has since been largely discredited.
Electric Universe/Sun is junk science.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

The main reason why it is hard to find reputable scientists debunking Plasma Cosmology is that mainstream science did not find it a credible theory many years ago and has long since moved on.

The claims by proponents of PC, of oppression by mainstream science, to my mind sounds very similar to the objections made by creationists.



Also see

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

In essence:

Plasma physics is a well established useful field of study.
Plasma Cosomolgy while not immediately dismissed has since been largely discredited.
Electric Universe/Sun is junk science.

cheers for the response. The more I search on it the more it appears to have been discredited alright.

Just a few questions on it though. Has it been shown that the observable matter in the universe is 99%+ plasma?

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

cheers for the response. The more I search on it the more it appears to have been discredited alright.

Just a few questions on it though. Has it been shown that the observable matter in the universe is 99%+ plasma?

AFAIK all stars consist of plasma (It is a matter state just like solid, gas, liquid ) so that figure would sound about right.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

AFAIK all stars consist of plasma (It is a matter state just like solid, gas, liquid ) so that figure would sound about right.

am I right in saying that it is pretty much just a gas with freely moving electrons? Not that I fully understand what that means, but that is how I think I've heard it described.

is it true that what was thought of as a vacuum in space is Plasma also?

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

am I right in saying that it is pretty much just a gas with freely moving electrons? Not that I fully understand what that means, but that is how I think I've heard it described.

is it true that what was thought of as a vacuum in space is Plasma also?

Hmm we are getting dangerously close to the edge of my plasma knowledge.

A gas essentially consists of free moving atoms which are charge neutral. A plasma is a gas in which the atoms have become ions (atoms with an electric charged) by losing electron. So it is a gas with free moving both ions and their electrons. A source of energy such as electrical or thermal energy is required to strip electrons away from atoms.

I don't think the vaccum is considered a plasma , perhaps ehat is being referred to is the interstellar mass I believe that this is considered a (diffuse)plasma. As are nebulas and the solar winds for example.

Not sure I will be able to more detailed questions very well, but don't let that put you off asking if you have more questions.

*Disclaimer: I may fob you off to the physics forum

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

am I right in saying that it is pretty much just a gas with freely moving electrons? Not that I fully understand what that means, but that is how I think I've heard it described.

Plasma is matter super-heated to the point that the atoms don't form persistent molecules, the electrons are in such a high energy state that they aren't tied to a nucleas.
It's still matter.

mangaroosh wrote: »

is it true that what was thought of as a vacuum in space is Plasma also?

Nope, its a vacuum.

As above, plasma is matter which is very very hot.
Like in stars.

The observable material universe (i.e. not dark matter) is 90% hydrogen.
90% of the rest is helium
90% of the remainder is carbon

The other 1/1000 is everything else.

But, you have to consider that 99.99999% of whats directly observed is observable because its:

a) massive
b) emitting light

i.e. all we can see are the stars, so any description of the contents of the universe is really a description of the contents of stars.

Gravitational calculations show dark matter to be 4 times more common than not-dark (burning) matter.

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

Hmm we are getting dangerously close to the edge of my plasma knowledge.

A gas essentially consists of free moving atoms which are charge neutral. A plasma is a gas in which the atoms have become ions (atoms with an electric charged) by losing electron. So it is a gas with free moving both ions and their electrons. A source of energy such as electrical or thermal energy is required to strip electrons away from atoms.

I don't think the vaccum is considered a plasma , perhaps ehat is being referred to is the interstellar mass I believe that this is considered a (diffuse)plasma. As are nebulas and the solar winds for example.

Not sure I will be able to more detailed questions very well, but don't let that put you off asking if you have more questions.

*Disclaimer: I may fob you off to the physics forum

cheers for the help anyways dude.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

Plasma is matter super-heated to the point that the atoms don't form persistent molecules, the electrons are in such a high energy state that they aren't tied to a nucleas.
It's still matter.

Nope, its a vacuum.

As above, plasma is matter which is very very hot.
Like in stars.

The observable material universe (i.e. not dark matter) is 90% hydrogen.
90% of the rest is helium
90% of the remainder is carbon

The other 1/1000 is everything else.

But, you have to consider that 99.99999% of whats directly observed is observable because its:

a) massive
b) emitting light

i.e. all we can see are the stars, so any description of the contents of the universe is really a description of the contents of stars.

Gravitational calculations show dark matter to be 4 times more common than not-dark (burning) matter.

is there any validity to this:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/99.999%25_plasma

The Universe is 99.999% plasma


The visible universe is 99.999% plasma. So quite simply, if you don't know how cosmic plasmas behave, you don't know the Universe. And astrophysical plasmas may behave differently to terrestrial plasmas.
It is worth noting that all cosmic plasma carries a magnetic field and electric currents. Even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas (ie. "dust grains can be the dominant current carrier")[3].

• "Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]
• "It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]
• "..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]
• "plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]
• "It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]
• "Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]
• "The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]
• "It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]
• "It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]
• "about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]
• "99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]
• "How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]

The Sun's mass makes up over 99.998% of the Solar System.[1] , and since it is nearly all in the plasma state,[2] over 99.98% of the mass of the Solar System is in the plasma state
URL="http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php?title=99.999%25_plasma&action=edit&section=3"]edit[/URL
The interplanetary medium is a near-100% plasma

The tenuous matter between the Sun and the planets is a fully ionized (100%) plasma.[16]. While the interplanetary plasma is very thin, it carries both a magnetic field and electric currents estimated at 3×109 amperes (see the heliospheric current sheet).
URL="http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php?title=99.999%25_plasma&action=edit&section=4"]edit[/URL
The interstellar medium is a plasma

The more tenuous matter between stars, the interstellar medium, includes regions of neutral hydrogen gas, dust and plasma such as the "Warm Ionized Medium", H II regions, and "hot ionized medium". As a significantly ionized gas, the medium behaves as a plasma, and carries a magnetic field,[17], and electric currents.[18]. (See also dusty plasmas)
URL="http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php?title=99.999%25_plasma&action=edit&section=5"]edit[/URL
The intergalactic medium is a near-100% plasma

The space between galaxies, the intergalactic medium, is a very tenuous, fully ionized plasma. [19], that carries magnetic field and electric currents.[20]

also, with regard to dark matter, I know according to the gravitational calculations that it must be present, but can its presence only be implied by the gravitational effects on matter around it? Does that mean that it cannot be observed or detected directly?

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

is there any validity to this:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index....999%25_plasma

They just repeat 20 times that everything we can see is plasma. Technically true, but not even related to this 'electric universe' notion.

The interplanetary medium is a near-100% plasma...

Strange that there isn't a bit of a glow off it.

tbh, I'd lump this crowd in with the flat earth brigade.

mangaroosh wrote: »

with regard to dark matter, I know according to the gravitational calculations that it must be present, but can its presence only be implied by the gravitational effects on matter around it? Does that mean that it cannot be observed or detected directly?

No, not at all.

Practically all observations of the universe are of 'light' (technically EM radiation, as the spectrum of observed light is far wider than visible light).

Measurements of distance, speed, mass and content of the stuff out there is all done through light - the brightness, spectrum, and frequency of the light tell us everything we know.

Dark matter inconveniently doesn't give out any light at all, but it does have mass.

Imagine a star that has gone out - it still has the mass of a star but just isn't burning any more, so theres no light. If theres no light, we can't see it, we can't measure how far away it is, how fast its moving or what its made of.

We can only tell its there because its mass is affecting other things which we can see. We have no way to measure anything but its mass.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

They just repeat 20 times that everything we can see is plasma. Technically true, but not even related to this 'electric universe' notion.

That was just reference to 20 different articles, stating the same thing. Just wanted to see if there was any validity to it

Gurgle wrote: »

Strange that there isn't a bit of a glow off it.

tbh, I'd lump this crowd in with the flat earth brigade.

ya, the more I look into it the more it appears to be discredited. What kind of glow would be expected from it?

Gurgle wrote: »

No, not at all.

Practically all observations of the universe are of 'light' (technically EM radiation, as the spectrum of observed light is far wider than visible light).

Measurements of distance, speed, mass and content of the stuff out there is all done through light - the brightness, spectrum, and frequency of the light tell us everything we know.

Dark matter inconveniently doesn't give out any light at all, but it does have mass.

Imagine a star that has gone out - it still has the mass of a star but just isn't burning any more, so theres no light. If theres no light, we can't see it, we can't measure how far away it is, how fast its moving or what its made of.

We can only tell its there because its mass is affecting other things which we can see. We have no way to measure anything but its mass.

Cheers, that is an infinitely more accessible description than anything I've come across.

roosh

Mangaroosh wrote:

is it true that what was thought of as a vacuum in space is Plasma also?

Nope, its a vacuum.

As above, plasma is matter which is very very hot.
Like in stars.

The observable material universe (i.e. not dark matter) is 90% hydrogen.
90% of the rest is helium
90% of the remainder is carbon

The other 1/1000 is everything else.

But, you have to consider that 99.99999% of whats directly observed is observable because its:

a) massive
b) emitting light

i.e. all we can see are the stars, so any description of the contents of the universe is really a description of the contents of stars.

Gravitational calculations show dark matter to be 4 times more common than not-dark (burning) matter.[/quote]

Just with regard to the above, is the statement underneath the picutre accurate or correct? It suggests that space is not actually a vacuum, but rather a plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Outer_space

marco_polo

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just with regard to the above, is the statement underneath the picutre accurate or correct? It suggests that space is not actually a vacuum, but rather a plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum#Outer_space

A perfect vaccum is simply an area of space that contains no matter whatsoever. In practice there is no such thing as a perfect vaccume and that includes space. In the interstellar medium, matter is found predominatly in the form of plasma (which is technically just a special state of gases) as well as small amounts of non-plasma matter for example asteroids etc.

However that space contains plasmas is not the same as staying that space is a plasma. (Actually the statement that space is a vaccum is technically incorrect for the same reason)

roosh

marco_polo wrote: »

A perfect vaccum is simply an area of space that contains no matter whatsoever. In practice there is no such thing as a perfect vaccume and that includes space. In the interstellar medium, matter is found predominatly in the form of plasma (which is technically just a special state of gases) as well as small amounts of non-plasma matter for example asteroids etc.

However that space contains plasmas is not the same as staying that space is a plasma. (Actually the statement that space is a vaccum is technically incorrect for the same reason)

OK, but that is more of a semantical point. It still holds that 99.999% of the observable universe is made up of plasma, with interstellar space being, in effect plasma, and such things as stars being made up largely of plasma also.

While space itself is not a plasma, 99.999% of what is in space is in the plasma form, or rather 99.999% of what we understand to be the universe is in the plasma state.

Is that fair to say?

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

OK, but that is more of a semantical point. It still holds that 99.999% of the observable universe is made up of plasma, with interstellar space being, in effect plasma, and such things as stars being made up largely of plasma also.

While space itself is not a plasma, 99.999% of what is in space is in the plasma form, or rather 99.999% of what we understand to be the universe is in the plasma state.

Is that fair to say?

Ture, but misleading unless you consider exactly what the word 'plasma' means.

By Boyle's law pressure, volume and temperature are all interdependent.

Water becomes a gas at 100°C at sea level, but at a much lower pressure at the top of a Mt. Everest.

In a star, you have plasma because the matter is a low volume under massive pressure and temperature.

In 'open' space what matter is there is spread over a massive volume, with extremely low temperature and pressure. The 'state' of the matter is therefore plasma also, but theres so little of it that it has pretty much no effect on anything.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

Ture, but misleading unless you consider exactly what the word 'plasma' means.

By Boyle's law pressure, volume and temperature are all interdependent.

Water becomes a gas at 100°C at sea level, but at a much lower pressure at the top of a Mt. Everest.

In a star, you have plasma because the matter is a low volume under massive pressure and temperature.

In 'open' space what matter is there is spread over a massive volume, with extremely low temperature and pressure. The 'state' of the matter is therefore plasma also, but theres so little of it that it has pretty much no effect on anything.

Evaporating water isn't a plasma though, is it? Plasma is a separate state from Gas isn't it?

when you say it has pretty much no effect on anything how do you mean? I'm not entirely sure, but does Plasma not display the same properties regardles of how much or how little there is of it?

Aurora Boralis is a plasma effect, so there is obviously some effect.

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

Evaporating water isn't a plasma though, is it? Plasma is a separate state from Gas isn't it?

No, but the principle of state change from liquid to gas is similar to that from gas to plasma.

mangaroosh wrote: »

when you say it has pretty much no effect on anything how do you mean? I'm not entirely sure, but does Plasma not display the same properties regardles of how much or how little there is of it?

The same properties, yes. But on a miniscule scale.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Aurora Boralis is a plasma effect, so there is obviously some effect.

We're not in open space, we're practically sitting on a star - its only a hundred million miles away.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

No, but the principle of state change from liquid to gas is similar to that from gas to plasma.

OK, but there is no need for a change of state. The plasma already exists. I'm not sure I get the point, though.

Gurgle wrote: »

The same properties, yes. But on a miniscule scale.

again, not sure if I get the point.

Gurgle wrote: »

We're not in open space, we're practically sitting on a star - its only a hundred million miles away.

Also, not sure if I get that point

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

OK, but there is no need for a change of state. The plasma already exists. I'm not sure I get the point, though....
again, not sure if I get the point....
Also, not sure if I get that point

OK, I'll try from another direction.
Plasma is not a magic material, its just another state of matter.

Temperature and pressure are opposite sides of the same coin - either increasing temperature or reducing pressure will enable matter to change to a 'looser*' state, first liquid, then gas, then plasma.

Increasing pressure or lowering temperature forces matter to 'condense' into a 'tighter**' state plasma -> gas -> liquid -> solid.

*looser: Higher energy state, where electrons are shared between atoms.
**tighter: Lower energy state, most electrons are captured and held by an atom.

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

OK, I'll try from another direction.
Plasma is not a magic material, its just another state of matter.

Temperature and pressure are opposite sides of the same coin - either increasing temperature or reducing pressure will enable matter to change to a 'looser*' state, first liquid, then gas, then plasma.

Increasing pressure or lowering temperature forces matter to 'condense' into a 'tighter**' state plasma -> gas -> liquid -> solid.

*looser: Higher energy state, where electrons are shared between atoms.
**tighter: Lower energy state, most electrons are captured and held by an atom.

that's all fine, I didn't consider Plasma as a magic material. I simply wanted to see if it was true that 99.999% of matter in the universe is in the plasma state or not. I also wanted to see if the interstellar medium was in fact a plasma, or at least contained plasma.

That might be the source of the confusion, whether or not the interstellar medium is made up entirely of plasma (or contains only matter in the plasma state)?

Or is there a perfect vacuum somewhere in there, or if the matter in the interstellar medium is not plasma, and there isn't a perfect vacuum, then what state does the matter exist in (and what percentage does it comprise)?


The other question then would be the effect that pressure has on plasma? Will it affect its conductive properties? From my understanding it won't affect them to a great extent.

Gurgle

mangaroosh wrote: »

Or is there a perfect vacuum somewhere in there, or if the matter in the interstellar medium is not plasma, and there isn't a perfect vacuum, then what state does the matter exist in (and what percentage does it comprise)?

Interstellar space is a near perfect vacuum.
What matter is present is in the form of plasma, in the sense that the pressure is so low and particles so scarse that atoms / molecules are not formed.

Inside a galaxy, its in the region of 100 particles per cubic meter, in intergalactic space (being the vast majority), closer to 1 particle per cubic meter.
Compare that to approx 10^27 in the sun.

i.e. there are 1000000000000000000000000000 times more atoms per cubic meter in the sun than in intergalactic space.

The other question then would be the effect that pressure has on plasma?

The effect of the 'plasma' in a region of space is the sum of the effect of the ions in that region. Low pressure = very very few ions = very very little effect.

Will it affect its conductive properties? From my understanding it won't affect them to a great extent.

Open space has no conductive properties.
It is (as near as makes no difference) a perfect insulator.

marco_polo

Interesting article in New Scientist on the Standard model and the future of physics not a million miles off the topic in hand.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427341.200-in-susy-we-trust-what-the-lhc-is-really-looking-for.html

roosh

Gurgle wrote: »

Interstellar space is a near perfect vacuum.
What matter is present is in the form of plasma, in the sense that the pressure is so low and particles so scarse that atoms / molecules are not formed.

Inside a galaxy, its in the region of 100 particles per cubic meter, in intergalactic space (being the vast majority), closer to 1 particle per cubic meter.
Compare that to approx 10^27 in the sun.

i.e. there are 1000000000000000000000000000 times more atoms per cubic meter in the sun than in intergalactic space.


The effect of the 'plasma' in a region of space is the sum of the effect of the ions in that region. Low pressure = very very few ions = very very little effect.


Open space has no conductive properties.
It is (as near as makes no difference) a perfect insulator.

cheers for the patience and the explanations lad

Inti

Gurgle wrote: »

Inside a galaxy, its in the region of 100 particles per cubic meter, in intergalactic space (being the vast majority), closer to 1 particle per cubic meter.

The effect of the 'plasma' in a region of space is the sum of the effect of the ions in that region. Low pressure = very very few ions = very very little effect.

Open space has no conductive properties.
It is (as near as makes no difference) a perfect insulator.

what size is the region?

what effect are you talking about?

what is open space?

Gurgle

Inti wrote: »

what size is the region?

Any size

Inti wrote: »

what effect are you talking about?

Any effect in general, EM field effects in specific.

Inti wrote: »

what is open space?

In increasing degrees of 'openness':
Interplanetary
Intersolar
Intergalactic

Inti

Gurgle wrote: »

Any size

Any effect in general, EM field effects in specific.

In increasing degrees of 'openness':
Interplanetary
Intersolar
Intergalactic

thanks for your reply.

openness is the distance between very large objects (or group) then?

so "any size" will combine with that openness definition.

let's try intersolar distance, and EM field then.

you said "no conductive properties", in open space, but also that there could be 100 charged particles per cu meter.

what is going to "not happen" to an em field?

you don't seem to mean a photon, so do you mean charge?

Gurgle

Inti wrote: »

you said "no conductive properties", in open space, but also that there could be 100 charged particles per cu meter

what is going to "not happen" to an em field?

This thread started as a discussion of the 'Plasma Cosmology' theory, that the formation of the universe after the big bang - ie the formation of galaxies - was due to the effect of charged matter spread throughout space.

This theory was around in the 60s, as an alternate explanation to CMBR fluctuations to explain the formation of galaxies. Since then CMBR fluctuations and the contents of space have been measured, making the PC theory defunct.

The basis of the theory is that EM forces are equal in importance to Gravity on an intergalactic scale - i.e that Einstein was way off on a tangent and had got it all wrong.

Anyhow, there are some pseudo scientists who claim that PC is actually correct, based on the fact that open space is full of plasma. Technically this is true, but that plasma is plasma in the sense that its matter which isn't formed into molecules. When we think of plasma, we think of dense matter which is super-heated to the point that the electrons separate from the nuclei. This high-energy plasma has loads of EM properties.

This is not the case in space, the matter is present so sparsely that the effect of its charge is negligible.

100 charged particles per cubic meter will give rise to an EM field, but one so weak that it has essentially no effect - the dominant force on a passing photon will be due to gravity, even in intergalactic space.

Inti wrote: »

you don't seem to mean a photon, so do you mean charge?

Those charged particles are individual protons, aka hydrogen nuclei.

Inti

Gurgle wrote: »

This thread started as a discussion of the 'Plasma Cosmology' theory, that the formation of the universe after the big bang - ie the formation of galaxies - was due to the effect of charged matter spread throughout space.

ok, thanks for something specific. galaxy formation; sorry i didn't catch that from the beginning.

Gurgle wrote: »

This theory was around in the 60s, as an alternate explanation to CMBR fluctuations to explain the formation of galaxies. Since then CMBR fluctuations and the contents of space have been measured, making the PC theory defunct.

The basis of the theory is that EM forces are equal in importance to Gravity on an intergalactic scale - i.e that Einstein was way off on a tangent and had got it all wrong.

"this theory" is called what? which paper are you citing?

an "alternate explanation of the cmbr fluctuations"? what was it competing with at that time?

whatever that was, i take it that it claims that only gravity is responsible for galaxy formation? (and the fluctuations?)

to what degree would this argument (between the 2 sides) be considered "rhetorical"? ie. if it turns out that gravity is 60% and em 40%, would you consider it a "win", or a "loss"? how about g = 30%, em = 30%, and "something else" = 40%? only "something else" gets to say they're right?

the part about mr einstein is quite uncalled for. can you show the paper that said he was "off on a tangent" (or any such thing)? there's no reason for anyone to mention him, because he did not put forth any model of the big bang, or galaxy formation. just because some people used his gravitational law in their theories does not make them correct, no could it have anything to do with someone else pointing out flaws in that model being equivalent to saying einstein (relativity) is wrong.

Gurgle wrote: »

Anyhow, there are some pseudo scientists who claim that PC is actually correct, based on the fact that open space is full of plasma. Technically this is true, but that plasma is plasma in the sense that its matter which isn't formed into molecules. When we think of plasma, we think of dense matter which is super-heated to the point that the electrons separate from the nuclei. This high-energy plasma has loads of EM properties.

i don't know everything, of course, i am just trying to learn about science. i don’t follow the pseudo-anything on tv or internet. we need to use peer reviewed sources.

“we think of plasma, we think of dense matter which is super-heated.. has loads of em properties” – ok, so where does this energy go? how would it cool down, as it spreads out in these “open spaces”?

Gurgle wrote: »

This is not the case in space, the matter is present so sparsely that the effect of its charge is negligible.

100 charged particles per cubic meter will give rise to an EM field, but one so weak that it has essentially no effect - the dominant force on a passing photon will be due to gravity, even in intergalactic space.

Those charged particles are individual protons, aka hydrogen nuclei.

if we started a model to explain a galaxy formation, how would we go about it? let’s put 2 mass sources (other galaxies) at some distance apart. then we’ll fill this space with the 100 p/m^3 you mentioned. we want to get something started between these particles, so that they can come together. we have gravity vs. charge.


F = G * m_1 – m_2 / r^2

F = k_e * q_1*q_2 / r^2

[font=&quot]When measured in units that people commonly use (such as SI—see International System of Units), the electrostatic force constant (ke) is numerically much much larger than the universal gravitational constant (G).[4] This means that for objects with charge that is of the order of a unit charge (C) and mass of the order of a unit mass (kg), the electrostatic forces will be so much larger than the gravitational forces that the latter force can be ignored. This is not the case when Planck units are used and both charge and mass are of the order of the unit charge and unit mass. However, charged elementary particles have mass that is far less than the Planck mass while their charge is about the Planck charge so that, again, gravitational forces can be ignored. For example, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton, which constitute a hydrogen atom, is almost 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force between them.[9][/font]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law


i can't agree with your claim that "charge is negligible.. the dominant force on a passing photon will be due to gravity..".

what is my reason to agree? (aren't we talking about the force on the 2 particles, rather than on a photon?)

Gurgle

Inti wrote: »

"this theory" is called what? which paper are you citing?

Plasma Cosmology, as per the thread title.

Inti wrote: »

an "alternate explanation of the cmbr fluctuations"? what was it competing with at that time?

At the time (the 60s), the big bang theory had been all figured and measurements of galaxies, their distances and speeds all supported it.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was theoretically predicted in the 40s as something we could expect to detect if the big bang had happened. In the early 60s, this radiation was successfully detected at exactly the predicted frequencies.

The big question moved on from 'Was there a big bang?' to 'After the big bang, how did the homogenous state of matter spread throughout the universe condense into galaxies?'.

One theory was that the early expansion after the big bang was not absolutely homogenous, which could be confirmed if fluctuations(inhomogeneities) in the CMBR could be measured. If this were true, then there would be denser regions forming curvature in Space-Time (Einstein, general relativity) which would attract more matter and eventually condense into gravity.

Plasma Cosmology was another theory which suggested that gravity was not responsible, but that after the big bang it was the distribution of charged particles that caused matter to condense into galaxies.


In the early 80's, the inhomogeneities in CMBR were detected and measured.
Case closed, deal done, we know how galaxies were formed.

Inti wrote: »

if we started a model to explain a galaxy formation, how would we go about it?

Start with a PhD in theoretical physics, then get back and explain the whole thing to me. I'm (only) an engineer who reads stuff.

roosh

just to dive in here.

this was how I came across the concept.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEbatH0ssYE

there are other vids on there, under plasma cosmology.

That was merely a starting point that piqued my interest. I searched around the net then for other stuff on the topic. There are some interesting claims, but I'm afraid I don't have the level of expertise to really understand a lot of it.


One thing, though, and I'm not sure if this has changed from the '60s but one of the proponents in the vids says that PC isn't about the distribution of matter after the big bang, but rather the formation of galaxies, with no assumption of the big bang.

With regard to the CMBR, it is claimed by the PC proponents that CMBR was predicted by "big bangers" but was incorrect to a degree of twenty, while PC proponents got it almost spot on.

Inti

Gurgle wrote: »

Plasma Cosmology, as per the thread title.

At the time (the 60s), the big bang theory had been all figured and measurements of galaxies, their distances and speeds all supported it.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was theoretically predicted in the 40s as something we could expect to detect if the big bang had happened.

first, you didn't bother responding to my points; here they are again.


1. coulombs law says we ignore gravity. you need to explain (or point to the explanation) of why we shouldn't, in order to make any claims, as you have.
When measured in units that people commonly use (such as SI—see International System of Units), the electrostatic force constant (ke) is numerically much much larger than the universal gravitational constant (G).[4] This means that for objects with charge that is of the order of a unit charge (C) and mass of the order of a unit mass (kg), the electrostatic forces will be so much larger than the gravitational forces that the latter force can be ignored. This is not the case when Planck units are used and both charge and mass are of the order of the unit charge and unit mass. However, charged elementary particles have mass that is far less than the Planck mass while their charge is about the Planck charge so that, again, gravitational forces can be ignored. For example, the electrostatic force between an electron and a proton, which constitute a hydrogen atom, is almost 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force between them.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb%27s_law


second, if you are going to mention specific predictions, as you are, then you need to provide the author and title of the peer reviewed paper that presented it. these theories (PC, BB) are not 'single paper/single author' ideas, so you must be more specific.

if you don't have the time, or knowledge, that's fine. but your saying "the case is closed" is ridiculous. you haven't even opened it yet.

please, less hand waving, and more details.


back to some of the first points you missed: you need to calculate the entire volume of 'space', not the 'per meter' rate. then you can begin to understand how space is conductive. these charged particles are moving, and interacting. the spaces that you described are billions and billions of cubic meters, just to get started. there is more at the same link above, if you want to see how.

galaxy formation (or most any of cosmology) is not completely understood yet. note the glaring errors of 'big bang' when it came to 'predicting' dark matter/dark energy. that evidence says that bb is wrong, yet of course, they cling to the hope that they will be able to patch it up (again), and continue receiving funding. this is normal.

It is one of the most active research areas in astrophysics.

Despite its many successes this picture is not sufficient to explain the variety of structure we see in galaxies.

The Lambda-CDM model of galaxy formation under predicts the number of thin disk galaxies in the universe.[5]
.. While this remains an unsolved problem for astronomers, it does not necessarily mean that the Lambda-CDM model is completely wrong, but rather that it requires further refinement to accurately reproduce the population of galaxies in the universe.

Astronomers do not currently know what process stops the contraction. In fact, theories of disk galaxy formation are not successful at producing the rotation speed and size of disk galaxies.

While we have learned a great deal about ours and other galaxies, the most fundamental questions about formation and evolution remain only tentatively answered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_formation_and_evolution

case far from closed.

Gurgle

Inti wrote: »

1. coulombs law says we ignore gravity. you need to explain (or point to the explanation) of why we shouldn't...

This is leaving cert physics, referring to the closed system interaction of two elementary charged particles. Yes the gravitational attraction between them is much less than the EM interaction, but there are no closed systems - this is an entirely theoretical situation.

The force experienced due to gravity:
F = G m1m2 / d squared

If m1 is a galaxy rather than a charged particle, then gravity becomes a lot more significant.

Both EM and Gravity are inverse-square laws.

When d is very very small, the rate of fall-off occurs rapidly.
As d becomes larger, the rate of fall-off becomes very very slow.

(Have you got Excel? Check this out if you don't believe me)

The EM inverse-distance-squared effect of 100 charged particles per meter cubed is negligible compared to the gravitational effect of a galaxy a few parsecs away.

Do the maths based on the formulae you quoted, elementary particle size, galactic sizes and separations.

second, if you are going to mention specific predictions, as you are, then you need to provide the author and title of the peer reviewed paper that presented it. these theories (PC, BB) are not 'single paper/single author' ideas, so you must be more specific.

if you don't have the time, or knowledge, that's fine. but your saying "the case is closed" is ridiculous. you haven't even opened it yet.

I'm not writing a paper to make a new arguement or a new model of the universe, I'm quoting from layman-accessible explanations of the 'best-fit' theories to explain the physics involved.

If you want a detailed maths-physics breakdown of these theories, take youself off to the physics / chemistry forum where Professor Fink & Co will leave you reeling with details way beyond your (or my) ability to comprehend.

back to some of the first points you missed: you need to calculate the entire volume of 'space', not the 'per meter' rate. then you can begin to understand how space is conductive.

This much I can tell you from absolute professional knowledge: That is not how conductivity works. Conductivity is a matter of charge carriers per unit volume.

galaxy formation (or most any of cosmology) is not completely understood yet. note the glaring errors of 'big bang' when it came to 'predicting' dark matter/dark energy.

What glaring errors?
The big bang is damn near unique in that its a theory that grew out of evidence, rather than the more common procedure of mathematically constructing a theory first then looking for evidence to see if its right.

that evidence says that bb is wrong

Dark matter and dark energy are both place-holder names for effects which have no visible causes. There is (to the best of my knowledge) nothing in those effects that contravenes big-bang physics*.
Where did you get the idea that dark matter / dark energy goes against the big bang theory?

(Having said that, my personal feeling is that all the matter/energy in the universe did not partake in just the one big bang. I have nothing to back that up, so I'm not putting it forward for scientific consideration. Yet. Give me a few decades to get my own PhD in theoretical physics.)

marco_polo

Inti wrote: »

back to some of the first points you missed: you need to calculate the entire volume of 'space', not the 'per meter' rate. then you can begin to understand how space is conductive. these charged particles are moving, and interacting. the spaces that you described are billions and billions of cubic meters, just to get started. there is more at the same link above, if you want to see how.

You should inform NASA of the conductive properties of space because they seem to be under the impression that it has none. They are clearly 'wasting' billions of dollars on shielding materials for the space program.