Talk:Plasma universe

Distinction from astrophysical plasmas
We need to be sure that we do not mix up the astrophysical plasma article with this article. Plasma Universe is nonstandard suggestions about astrophysical plasmas. As such, many of the citations in the articles actually do not belong here and instead should be sent over there. Likewise, we need to include the marginal and outright rejected citations here to make the distinction abundantly clear. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They are surely not mutually exclusive. Just because standard astrophysical plasmas accepts certain aspects that appear in the Plasma Universe, and vice versa, does not preclude mentioning them in both articles where appropriate. We surely describe the whole of the Plasma Universe, not just those that differentiate from the standard astronomy -- noting what those differences are --Iantresman 18:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The only sense I've seen the "Plasma Universe" used in common parlance is in regards to nonstandard activities. Do you have a contemporary and up-to-date reference that indicates otherwise? A website, perhaps? --ScienceApologist 18:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Try the following:
 * Physics of the Plasma Universe, (1992 book) Anthony L. Peratt. See also his Plasma universe Web site (and link to Papers). His book is more extensive.
 * The Plasma Universe, (1992) Falthammar, C. G. (Click Scanned Article (GIF) for full article)
 * Electric space : evolution of the plasma universe, (1996) Anthony L. Peratt (Click Scanned Article (GIF) for full article)
 * IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Dec 1986 Vol 14 No 6, was a Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, featuring articles encompassing the Electric Universe
 * Laser and Particle Beams. Aug 1988: Vol 6 Part 3: "Special Issue on Particle Beams and Basic Phenomena in the Plasma Universe"
 * Other IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issues featuring cosmic plasmas and the Plasma Universe include:
 * Apr 1989 Vol 17 No 2 | Feb 1990 Vol 18 No 1 | Dec 1992 Vol 20 No 6 | Dec 2003 Vol 31 No 6
 * --Iantresman 19:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're missing my point. The "Plasma Universe" as a concept needs to be distinguished from astrophysical plasmas. Is there any distinction other than the one I named? If there is only a nebulous and undefinable distinction, then the two articles should be merged. --ScienceApologist 19:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It has several differentiating features based on the application of laboratory plasmas to cosmic plasma in the areas that are listed in the article. If you check the footnotes supplied, I think you will find the "theories" to be sufficiently "non-standard". And I'm sure you've come across intergalactic Birkeland currents, the cellurisation of space, cosmic electric circuits, ambiplama, etc etc. Why don't you wait for some more of the article it appear. --Iantresman 19:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * the application of laboratory plasmas to cosmic plasma in the areas that are listed in the article. --> actually there is no dispute in the astrophysics community about the applicability. The applicability is universally accepted. So if that's the only distinction, the articles will be merged. --ScienceApologist 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The Plasma Universe is distinct. Read one of the paper on the subject, and then tell me if it fits in with the standard view of astrophysical plasmas. --Iantresman 23:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of Alfvén's seminal papers are actually quite standard (regarding certain ISM, star formation, and solar system processes). Many of those papers you quoted are not unorthodox. So if you do not disagree with the characterization made in the article then we can start to cull some of Alfvén's more standard work from this page and deal only with nonstandard topics. --ScienceApologist 00:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, MHD is standard. Stellar formation by z-pinch is not. Galactic formation by interacting parallel Birkeland currents is not. CIV is not. Cosmic circuits are not standard. But we describe the "theory" as a whole, not just the non-standard bits. --Iantresman 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Magnetic confinement and cooling mechanisms while not correct as Alfvén crudely derived them do actually work in stellar formation models. Why is MHD considered part of Plasma Universe? Who is making the determination of what is and isn't included? None of the authors seems to offer a concrete distinction from "Plasma Universe" and astrophysical plasma research in general. --ScienceApologist 01:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I just write about what I read. --Iantresman 08:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Crticism of the Plasma Universe
Ned Wright's criticism is (a) not peer reviewed (a requirement of the scientific method), and you've already criticized me for not using peer-reviewed sources (even when there are hudreds of them) (b) Wrights criticism are on certain aspects of Lerner's cosmology; that's not a criticism of the Plasma Universe as a whole (c) one person's opinion must surely count as undue weight --Iantresman 23:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (a) the scientific method does not require peer review. Criticism does not require the method. (b) The prose in question involves examples of criticisms of cosmology in particular and since there is no monolithic type to criticize, you have no case, (c) Ned Wright criticizes Eric Lerner. It's a fact and there is no issue of minority opinion. --ScienceApologist 00:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When you add a link from the Big Bang article to http://www.cosmologystatement.org/, and state that the Big Bang has received criticism, then you can have Wright. --Iantresman 01:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tit-for-tat editting is ridiculous. This is under-handed editting, Ian. --ScienceApologist 01:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Joshua, you are a big bang advocate and a materialist. It follows that you do not have any sort of understanding of plasma physics, why are you here too? Everyplace I go that has to do with plasma I find you here disputing everything that is being said by plasma researchers, why? Are you trying to help? Are yu trying to make a better encyclopedia? I don't think so. I think that as a materialist, admitted by you on your page, you must deny the existence of any other philosophies. But so ironic that you always manage to call the other "underhanded" and we know a lot about people like that.

Tommy Mandel 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of speculation
I removed the following paragraph:
 * However, some of the suggestions made during the intial research into the field have been marginalized or are considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified. Nevertheless, a small group of commited scientists and laypersons are convinced for various reasons that many of these discarded ideas are relevant and mistakenly dismissed. Today, the term "Plasma Universe" serves as an umbrella to indicate this collection of ideas which range from the allegedly fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions of the Electric Sun, a catastrophic origin of the solar system to nonstandard but more prosaic explanations regarding cosmology.

ScienceApologist, this is complete and utter bollocks. There is NO connection of the "Plasma Universe" with the Electric Universe as it NEVER mentions it, nothing pseudoscientific about it (it's all peer revwied), and NO connection with catastrophism. Please READ some of the articles and books on the Plasma Universe and write about what you can verify. --Iantresman 09:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've read some of the articles on the so-called "Plasma Universe" subject you've recommended and I can't for the life of me tell the difference between it and astrophysical plasma. If we cannot determine what the distinction is (and if the Electric Universe really is not part of the subject) then I will redirect this article to astrophysical plasmas. --ScienceApologist 16:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference, why on earth are you trying to edit the article? Why have you restored a paragraph that I have told you is innaccurate, and which you can not substantiate? --Iantresman 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't made a case that there is a difference at all. I think that a merge may be in order. --ScienceApologist 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted redirect
I've reverted the unilateral decision to #redirect the article to Astrophysical plasma by WAS 4.250, based on no consensus and no discussion. --Iantresman 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussion is happening here Talk:Astrophysical plasma. Right now I can see no rationale for keeping this as a separate article. --ScienceApologist 05:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The do your usual knee jerk response and set-up yet another an Article for Deletion. I'm sure others will have least have the courtesy to see how the article develops. --Iantresman 07:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect reinstated
No work done on this article to justify its existence independent of plasma cosmology. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation
This page currently redirects to plasma cosmology. I'm having a discussion on the definition of plasma universe on the talk page there: Talk:Plasma cosmology and at Talk:Anthony Peratt, see Book "Physics of the Plasma Universe". The conclusion I'm coming to is:
 * plasma universe = Alfvén-Klein cosmology
 * plasma universe does not = Alfvén-Klein cosmology
 * plasma universe = plasma cosmology
 * plasma universe does not = plasma cosmology
 * plasma universe = 99.99% of the ordinary matter in the universe (non-fringe view)

I feel a disambiguation page coming on. i.e. changing this from a redirect to a disambiguation page. Along the lines of:

The term Plasma Universe has various definitions, or is used as a synonym for a few different things:
 * Alfvén-Klein cosmology - a particular non-standard cosmological model
 * Plasma cosmology - a loose set of non-standard ideas about cosmology, including Alfvén-Klein cosmology
 * Astrophysical plasma - a mainstream science, where the term plasma universe emphasises that >99% of the ordinary matter in the universe is in the form of plasma
 * Plasma universe - a term coined by Hannes Alfvén to emphasise that plasma physics must play an important role in the evolution of the universe, and thus including (but not equivalent to) astrophysical plasma and including plasma cosmology

Comments? Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Mainstream physics does not say that >99% of the universe is plasma? That's an idea coined by Alfvén, and he called it "plasma universe"? And then Lerner and Peratt shifted the meaning of plasma universe into a synonym of "Plasma cosmology", but they preserved the idea that >99% is plasma?


 * P.D.: Yep, someone hid the scientific consensus in a footnote of Plasma (physics), while giving utmost prominence to the fringe. Nice one. "The current scientific consensus is that about 96% of the total energy density in the universe is not plasma or any other form of ordinary matter, but a combination of cold dark matter and dark energy." It's not even mentioned in the lead. Well, they say that plasma is 99% of "ordinary matter". I am not sure if this is clear enough for readers who are not trained in physics. Note how the sources use different words to express this idea:
 * "It should be noted that more that 99% of the visible universe is in the plasma state."
 * "It is an interesing fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state."
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've slightly changed the statement above from: "a mainstream science, emphasising that >99% of the ordinary matter in the universe is in the form of plasma" to "a mainstream science, where the term plasma universe emphasises that >99% of the ordinary matter in the universe is in the form of plasma". I think "visible" is not a good term, as many readers will assume from this that we are talking about light from the visible part of the e-m spectrum, so ordinary matter that is radiating e.g. in the infra red would not then count, not to mention cold dark ordinary matter. But otherwise you seem to support the interpretation above of the different meanings?Aarghdvaark (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Then let's use Observable universe? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think Observable universe applies? It says there: "It simply indicates that it is possible in principle for light or other signals from the object to reach an observer on Earth". I take that to include dark matter, because a lot of people are hoping that someone will invent something that will enable dark matter to be directly observed - i.e. it's not about what we can actually observe now. What's the problem with ordinary matter being contrasted with dark matter? Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, been a week and no more comments, so I'll go ahead and make it a disambiguation page. Aarghdvaark (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I accept "ordinary". But I removed the piping to Plasma (physics), see Manual_of_Style_(disambiguation_pages). In a disambiguation page, you shouldn't link to an article while displaying the name of a different article. I "fixed" it by pointing to Astrophysical plasma, which seems to be more on topic than Plasma (physics).


 * Now, Astrophysical plasma doesn't mention the 99% fact, despite being mainstream. It should be added there? And it's not in Plasma (physics) either? P.D.: D'oh, it's not even mentioned in Plasma cosmology, despite its importance to this topic..... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * >99% of what you see (the visible universe) is plasma, because you mostly see stars. A lot of the other ordinary matter is also plasma (e.g. interstellar plasma, intergalactic plasma). There are quotes to say 99% of the visible universe is plasma, but now you've pointed it out there don't seem to be quotes saying 99% of the ordinary matter is plasma (although it might well be). I've changed the article to reflect this. Thanks Enric. Aarghdvaark (talk) 07:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page all redirecting to the same article is pointless. I've reverted it as such, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)