Talk:Astrophysical plasma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Looks like a galaxy to me... Tommysun 07:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 ambiplasma/plasma cosmology 2 Plasma Universe proposed merger 3 Request for Plasma Universe to stay active 4 Motion to close the issue 5 Footnotes

[edit] ambiplasma/plasma cosmology

Hi, I originally created this page to emphasize the importance of plasma in parts of astrophysics where its importance is well agreed upon, so I would appreciate it if we can avoid having the whole plasma cosmology controversy spill over into it. I tried to amalgamate the discussion of cosmology and clarify the status, that is that the early ambiplasma model of Alfvén seems to have been falsified (see, for example, P. J. E. Peebles, The principles of physical cosmology, Princeton 1993 or the section Eric Lerner wrote about the ambiplasma at plasma cosmology) but that people continue to study a related, though different, non-standard cosmology. Is this agreeable to both Ian and SA? –Joke 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I mentioned plasma cosmology just once in the History section, which seemed reasonable; and I don't think Ambiplasma was mentioned at all. --Iantresman 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Karma is after you. I created a page plasma astrophysics which was then redirected to here. Give me back my page and you can keep yours

Tommy Mandel 23:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think plasma cosmology belongs on this page in anything more than a very cursory manner. --ScienceApologist 16:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That was sort of the point. But now the page is filled with stuff about Alfvén, so it seems inevitable to mention it. –Joke 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"...ambiplasma was abandonded due to a lack of observational evidence,". I wonder whether we can get away with "a lack of observational evidence" about dark matter. --Iantresman 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Since ambiplasma was abandonded by the very person who advocated it, and since dark matter has observational evidence, I say you should keep your own uneducated whimsy to yourself. --ScienceApologist 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scienceaplogist I see you are here too insulting Ian as usual. Let's see, observational evidence for dark matter, you don't mean the rotational rates that plasma can account for do you?Tommy Mandel 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dark matter#Observational evidence. Who would have thought to look there? --Art Carlson 09:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no observation evidence for dark matter. That's why it's dark. Have a read of the first sentence in the dark matter article: ".. dark matter refers to hypothetical matter particles, of unknown composition, that do not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be detected directly". --Iantresman 20:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

There is observational evidence for dark matter. If you would actually read the article on the subject you might learn what it is. --ScienceApologist 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Matter may not be "observed" in the visible spectrum (the narrow band between 0.35 and 0.75 microns) but photons exist in many wavelenths other than these, from the gamma rays to hard x-rays and EUV, and past the IR to the microwave and radio portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. And let's not forget that there are four forces in Nature, not just the electromagnetic realm of photons. So please don't make blanket statements like "there is no observational evidence," before considering these other facts. It would do us all good to remember that the energy in the Universe is tied up in more than just the photons from the colors of the rainbow. Astrobayes 05:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plasma Universe proposed merger

The article Plasma Universe is supposedly about a proposal by Alfven that the universe consists of plasma. While I have seen this phrase used exclusively to refer to non-standard accounts of plasma physics, there are other editors that think that it is more overarching a term than this. If such is the case, then Plasma Universe might be served better as a redirect to this article. Thoughts? --ScienceApologist 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out what "Plasma Universe" is supposed to mean.

1. Does it refer to a specific model proposed by Alven's (i.e., not a theory of everything)? Model of what?
2. Does it refer to the sum of Alfven's work on astrophysical plasmas? In this case the material might belong better in the article on Alfven.
3. Does it refer to all aspects of plasma physics in the universe? Then it should be merged with astrophysical plasma.
4. Does it refer to alternative cosmology? Then it would seem to belong with plasma cosmology.

In sum, it is not clear to me that the concept "plasma universe" is well enough defined to warrant a separate article, but I'm not sure where to put it.

--Art Carlson 20:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is based on Alfven's work on astrophysical plasmas, but extended and further developed by other researchers. Some aspects of the Plasma Universe, even though they are derived from standard plasma physics, are not consided in "standard" astrophysical plasmas. For example,

• The "Plasma Universe" is based completely on standard plasma physics; Alfvén makes a big deal of this... it is all based on an existing knowledge of plasmas, which is then applied to the cosmos. ie. no new physics. This differentiates itself from some existing theories, which use new science: Big Bang, Black Holes. Neutron Stars, Dark Matter.
• Plasmas will pinch (Bennett or z-pinch), which is standard plasma physics. Alfvén scales this up and applies the science to cosmic sizes, and suggests that a cosmic pinches may form stars (this is non-standard astrophysics).
• Parallel Birkeland currents will behave in a certain way, as demonstrated in the laboratory (standard plasma physics). Peratt scales this up to galactic proportions and finds that they appear to simulate the formation of galaxies (non-standard astrophysics)
• The dense plasma focus device is standard laboratory plasma physics. A number of researchers have scaled-up its properties to cosmic proportions and find that it appears to simulate "jets" (non-standard astrophysics)

Standard plasma physics, non-standard astrophysical plasmas.

• The article on Hannes Alfvén is about the person.
• The article on Astrophysical plasmas is about the "standard" view of space plasmas
• The article on Plasma cosmology is one of the applications of the Plasma Universe. Other applications include areas of astronomy which are different to standard cosmology (eg. cosmogeny, ring formation, cellularisation of space, cosmic circuits, synchrotron radiation etc)

Peratt wrote a 400-page book on the Physics of the Plasma Universe. There are many peer reivewed articles. There is more than enough material to write a Wikipedia article... just give it a chance.

--Iantresman 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we clarify that in the opening sentence? "Plasma universe" does not refer to one model, it does not refer just to the work of Alfven, and, unless you use "material" to refer to baryonic matter, it is a minority viewpoint that plasma is "the most prevalent material in the universe". How about this: "Plasma universe" is a phrase used to refer to a variety of non-standard ideas on the role of plasmas in astrophysics. --Art Carlson 21:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a combination of theories, hypothesis and ideas, that are wholly standard in plasma physics (eg. MHD, double layers, pinches, CIV), but which some may be considered to be non-standard in astromomy (though I've not seen any references suggesting this). Peratt's theory of galaxy formation from interacting Birkeland currents is a peer-reviewed and published in mainstream journals from the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science to Laser and Particle Beams. Are the ideas non-standard? Certainly not in plasma physics. In astronomy? I can't find any verifiable citations which indicate one way or another. --Iantresman 21:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, after carefully reading your reply above and also your contributions below, I cannot identify any specific disagreement with my proposed opening sentence. Is this assessment correct, or has there been a breakdown of communication? If you are not happy with my proposal, can you either propose an alternative or respond to my criticisms of the sentence as it exists? --Art Carlson 08:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So if there are no references that distinguish "Plasma Universe" ideas from astrophysical plasmas, how can we consider this to be a separate article? --ScienceApologist 05:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

References have already been provided to the "Plasma Universe", once in the article itself, and once in the article talk space. --Iantresman 07:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I don't have time for this. You say "I can't find any verifiable citations" and then you turn around and say "References have already been provided". If you can't be comprehensible and consistent long enough for me to figure out what you're trying to say, I may just start ignoring you. --Art Carlson 09:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're comparing different issues, namely the verifiability of (1) The existance of the Plasma Universe model/ideas (2) The differentiation of the Plasma Universe from "astrophysical plasmas". (3) The notion that the Plasma Universe is "standard or non-standard".

(1) The "Plasma Universe" as a concept/idea, or whatever you want to call it, is readily verifiable. For example:

• "The term 'Plasma Universe' is a term coined by Hannes Alfvén", see the Abstract of the paper by Falthammar [1]
• Alfvén calls it a model. He writes in the Abstract: "Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe."[2]
• Brandenburg writes in the introduction to his article that his "..Gravity Electro-Magnetism (GEM) (Brandenburg, 1992; Brandenburg, 1988) theory is based on the founding assumption of the Plasma Universe (Alfven, 1990; Peratt, 1992)"[3]

(2) As a view that may be differentiated from "astrophysical plasmas", let's look at some Plasma Universe theories/ideas, and see if they are form part of existing "astrophysical plasmas". For example, the following referenced theories are unique to the "Plasma Universe":

• Origin of the Universe^[1]; ScienceApologist has already labelled Plasma cosmology as "pseudoscience" which seems at odds if this is just "Astrophsyical plasmas"
• Formation of galaxies^[2]; ScienceApologist has already dismissed Peratt's work, which seems at odds if this is just "Astrophsyical plasmas"
• Z-pinch formation of stars^[3] (Unique to the Plasma Universe)
• Plasma formation of planetary rings^[4] (Unique to the Plasma Universe)
• Birkeland current/dense plasma focus formation of jets ^[5] (Unique to the Plasma Universe)
• Quantized redshift^[6] (attributed to the Plasma Universe)
• Titius-Bode law^[7] (Unique to the Plasma Universe)
• The origin of cosmic rays^[8],
• Cellular nature of space^[9] (Unique to the Plasma Universe)
• Intergalactic Electric currents in cosmic plasmas^[10]. (Unique to the Plasma Universe)

(3) As a "non-standard" phenomenon, the Plasma Universe is based on standard plasma physics. I have found no references which describe the Plasma Universe as "non-standard". However:

• Alfvén writes: "An attempt is made to construct a model of the "plasma universe" which is claimed to be an alternative to the traditional "visual universe"^[11]

Note to ScienceApologist: Please don't break up the post. --Iantresman 10:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on this description I would summarize that "plasma universe" is not used to refer to a well-defined model, but to a grab-bag of plasma-based alternative explanations to various astrophysical phenomena. It is also a terminology not widely recognized in the astrophysics community or outside of it. Perhaps "non-standard astrophysics" or "non-standard plasma astrophysics" would be a more descriptive title. Alternatively, we could just take the proposals one at a time and let them stand or fall within the context of the article on astrophysical plasmas. It is not clear why ideas that may not be wiki-worthy on their own should become so by association with other unworthy ideas. --Art Carlson 14:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have plans to create articles on some of the specific Plasma Universe ideas and theories because I do consider them Wiki-worthy. And since the "Plasma Universe" covers both "standard" and "non-standard" astrophysics, I still think that the original title is more appropriate. --Iantresman 17:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of astrophysics which is both standard and described as "plasma universe"? Your examples above are all non-standard. --Art Carlson 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Most basic laboratory plasma phenomena that are accepted in standard astrophysics. For example, field-aligned currents in the magnetopshere or Sun, magnetic fields may be created from the motion of plasma --Iantresman 20:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, exactly, are "field-aligned currents" part of plasma universe? Do you have any examples of plasma processes in astrophysics which are standard but not described as "plasma universe"? Is it just me who feels that this isn't a real subject? --ScienceApologist 23:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Plasma Universe to stay active

I want to know exactly how to distinguish between "Plasma Universe" and "astrophysical plasma". What is the difference between the two subjects? Why is it necessary to have two articles? --ScienceApologist 20:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The examples I gave above, clearly differentiate aspects of the the Plasma Universe that are not generally accepted in astrophysical plasmas. --Iantresman 21:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, can you in a simple sentence please distinguish between the two? --ScienceApologist 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Plasma Universe" features a number of known properties of laboratory plasmas that are used to model astronomical feature and processes that are not accepted in astrophysical plasmas (and vice versa). Examples:

Plasma Universe	Astrophysical plasmas
Intergalactic Birkeland currents	Magnetospheric Birkeland currents
Birkeland current galaxy formation	No
Z-pinch star formation	Z-pinch solar flares, jets
Z-pinch synchrotron radiation	No
Extra-solar electric circuits	Auroral circuits, heliospheric current sheet
"Invisible" energy transfer	No
Chemical separation	No
Real plasmas	Pseudo-plasmas
Plasma cosmology	Big Bang
No	Black holes
No	Neutron stars
No	Dark matter
No	Magnetic reconnection

--Iantresman 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no magnetic reconnection events in Plasma Universe? Do you have a cite for each of these points? I didn't find most of them in Alfven's initial article. --ScienceApologist 03:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian, I'm a bit concerned that you've suddenly lost the will to reference your points. I find your table above to be one of the most interesting you've produced yet, but cannot find a comprehensive source that verifies this. --ScienceApologist 03:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

References for a talk page? I would have thought you would have accepted them in good faith, and waited for them to be included in the article.--Iantresman 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The table indeed has some strange entries, but I'd rather not get lost in details here. When I squint at them, Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology look pretty similar. I'm beginning to think that plasma cosmology should be merged with Plasma Universe, and both kept out of standard cosmology and astrophysical plasmas (except for a link). --Art Carlson 08:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology is to astronomy, what Plasma Cosmology is to the Plasma Universe. The latter includes those theories/ideas that do not fall into Plasma cosmolgy. --Iantresman 11:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. In the standard view, the distinction between cosmology and astrophysics is relatively clear. Cosmology is stuff that happened in the beginning - primordial fluctuations laying the seeds for large scale structure, inflation, nucleosynthesis, decoupling of the radiation which we now see as CMB. Astrophysics covers processes that are happening now, although possibly with some secular variations (changes in metallicity, changes in the number of AGNs). In the plasma religion, there is no beginning, so there is no temporal transition, and plasma phenomena are scaled from the laboratory up to the largest dimensions, so there is no spatial transition. It is practically a tenet of the "plasma universe" that there is no distiction between astrophysics and cosmology. --Art Carlson 13:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Art Carlson here, though I see Ian's point. I just don't think that the "alternatives" seen in other areas of astrophysics are separate enough from standard models to warrant separate inclusion. Indeed, the most divergeant area of the so-called "Plasma Universe" is plasma cosmology. If this discipline really is supposed to be an alternative to standard astrophysics, why wouldn't it be called "Plasma Astrophysics"? Instead, the "Plasma Universe" indicates immediately a cosmological (that is, large-scale) perspective. --ScienceApologist 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to close the issue

If Plasma Universe is to survive as a separate article, there needs to be a justification for its existence in terms of either a succinct definition of the subject or a differentiation between it, Plasma cosmology, and standard treatments of astrophysical plasmas. We do not have this currently and therefore I move to merge any useful material to this page and plasma cosmology and redirect plasma universe to plasma cosmology. I imagine Ian won't like this, but I haven't seen any indication that he is willing to actually back-up his assertions. Therefore, I'm asking if there is consensus on the part of other editors of these subjects. --ScienceApologist 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have provided verifiable citations noting the "Plasma Universe". I have provided verifiable citations showing a difference between the "Plasma Universe", "Plasma cosmology" and "[[Astrophysical plasmas]". You personally don't have to like it, approve of it, or even accept it.
• Go and find yourself a book on "Astrophysical plasmas"; I doubt very much you will find mention of "double layers", "Critical ionization velocity", "Birkeland currents", and "Plasma circuits", let alone any discussion of their application to astronomy.
• I am even more surprised that you are able to make up your mind based in a handful a paragraphs, without even waiting for the article to be completed.
• I am doubly surprised, that based on all of Alfvén's material that you have personally removed from various articles, that you happy to have it all put back into a standard article on astrophysics. --Iantresman 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting on a response from Ian on the most basic of queries. --ScienceApologist 20:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You can check my responses by looking for those sentences that end in my user name. If you have anything specific to comment on, please feel free to do so. --Iantresman 21:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two specific questions made by me above left unanswered. --ScienceApologist 21:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Remind me, I'm getting old --Iantresman 21:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I still can't decide where this material belongs. If I try to characterize it, I would (1) include only those elements that go beyond or contrary to standard plasma astrophysics, (2) establish a historical connection to Alfven, (3) emphasize the viewpoints of (a) a ubiquity and importance of plasma processes far beyond that commonly recognized, (b) the scalability from laboratory devices up to the largest scales, (c) an aversion to what is considered to be "new physics". The details of plasma cosmology could be relegated to that article, with appropriate cross references. Standard plasma astrophysics would go to astrophysical plasma. Is this characterization accurate? Is it helpful? --Art Carlson 10:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

• That sounds about right, but it is not right to include only material that go beyond or contrary to standard plasma astrophysics. There is no doubt that there is common ground among them, in just the same way there is common material between "Big Bang", "Physical cosmology", "Large-scale structure of the cosmos", etc. If we were short on space, we could combine them all into one article, but each has a different perspective.
• The article on the Plasma Universe will characterise the subject with the obvious link to Alfvén, and note the differences with "standard astrophysical plasmas". There is more than enough material for separate articles on the Plasma Universe, Plasma cosmology and "Astrophysical plasmas"; why not give it a chance, and at least wait and see what the article contains. --Iantresman 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If Plasma Universe apostles accept all of standard plasma astrophysics, it is a bad idea to copy all the content from the one article to the other. It is much better to write, "Of course, all the standard ideas of astrophysical plasmas also form a part of the Plasma Universe." --Art Carlson 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the Plasma Universe article would not include most of the content of the Astrophysical plasmas article; and vice versa --Iantresman 11:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes