Explaining the Higgs

Jan 14, 2014 by Sarah Sweeney
"In a world with many problems where progress isn’t always clear, it is wonderful to see science so clearly advance and for us to be able to answer such basic questions that help us better understand our universe," said Lisa Randall, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science, on the discovery of the Higgs boson. Credit: Photo by Merrill Fabry/Princeton University

Lisa Randall, the Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science in Harvard's Department of Physics, is an expert on particle physics and in 2007 was named one of Time magazine's most influential people. Her e-book, "Higgs Discovery: The Power of Empty Space," which delves into the discovery of the Higgs boson, has been so successful that it was recently released in paperback. Here, Randall discusses her motivation for writing the book and why the Higgs unearthing is so significant.

GAZETTE: Why did you write this book, and for whom is it written?

RANDALL: The discovery of the Higgs boson was a remarkable event. The particle was predicted based on the need for a consistent theory to describe what was known about nature half a century ago. The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the 27-kilometer-circumference machine near Geneva, was built to look for new particles and forces and the underlying nature of matter. One of the goals was to find the Higgs boson, a particle that helps us understand how elementary particles acquire their masses. Yet no one knew for certain when—and even if—it would be found.

When the discovery was announced on July 4, 2012, I was on vacation on the island of Patmos, Greece, where I was attending a wedding. I literally heard about the discovery on the balcony of the one café with Internet nearby on the island. I listened to a live feed (supplemented with Twitter for when the signal was too low). I was thrilled, but also frustrated to be so far from my work and my colleagues at the time. And many people immediately wrote to me to express excitement but also to ask many questions. Even though they were fascinated, they didn't quite know what it was that had been found.

Having just written a book, "Knocking on Heaven's Door," which among other things explained the LHC and the search for the Higgs boson, I wanted to be able to answer those questions and complete the story (at least this part of it). But I also wanted to return to full-time research and not be burdened with another book so soon after finishing the previous one. So I decided to write a short e-book, but only if I could do it in a week.

I happened to be in London en route to a European science conference immediately after Greece and spoke to a partner of my book agent who advised against an e-book, suggesting (correctly, in my opinion) that if writers agree to the terms, they will lose out in the end. But she saw that I really was excited and read on my laptop what I had managed to write the evening before and quickly changed her mind, agreeing that it could be a good thing. My publisher, Ecco, signed on and agreed to a quick turnover (amazing in the publishing world) and added two chapters I had written on the Higgs boson for my previous two books.

GAZETTE: In the simplest, easiest, most rudimentary terms, what is the Higgs boson?

RANDALL: The Higgs boson is a particle associated with the masses of . Notice the careful phrasing. There are two common misconceptions about the Higgs boson that are important to know if you want to truly understand it.

First of all, the Higgs boson is associated only with elementary particle masses such as that of the electrons or particles called quarks inside protons and neutrons. Most of the mass of common matter is a result of the strong binding force in those protons and neutrons. It would exist even without the Higgs boson. But the mass of the most basic particles we know about—those building blocks of matter of which all ordinary stuff is made—can only be explained by something called the Higgs mechanism.

The Higgs mechanism is a result of something called a field that extends throughout space, even where no particles are present. This notion is probably most familiar to you from a magnetic field. You feel a force between a magnet and your refrigerator even when "nothing" is there. A field can fill "empty" space. The Higgs field extends throughout space. Elementary particles acquire their masses by interacting with this field. It is kind of like space is charged and particles get mass through their interactions with this charge.

Now, back to the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson is not directly responsible for mass. The Higgs field is. The boson is a particle that tells us our understanding of this mechanism is correct. It also is a big clue as to where that field came from in the first place. Its discovery tells us that what we expected to be true was indeed correct, and it gives us clues as to what else might underlie the Standard Model.

GAZETTE: What are the implications of its discovery? What's next?

RANDALL: First of all, it means our understanding of what is called the Standard Model of is correct. We understand the basic of matter and the forces through which they interact. We now also know how they get their masses.

But there are still many properties we have yet to understand. Chief among the questions we'd like to answer is why masses are what they are. Not only are all the elementary particle masses different from each other, they are one ten-thousand-trillion times smaller than we would expect if we tried to estimate them based on the equations given by quantum mechanics and special relativity. It turns out this is an extraordinarily challenging problem. The answer could give us deep insights, not only into particle physics but into the nature of space itself.

The LHC will search for answers to these questions, both by looking for new particles and by better measurements of the Higgs boson's properties. Any new information helps us move forward.

GAZETTE: Why should the layperson care about the Higgs boson?

RANDALL: No one necessarily "should." They can live their lives without this knowledge. But I do think those who care should have access to understanding. And I also have seen that many do care. I think the reason has to do with being human and curious and wanting to understand the world and universe in which we live. I also think the discovery is rewarding in that it truly represents progress, both technical and scientific. In a world with many problems where progress isn't always clear, it is wonderful to see science so clearly advance and for us to be able to answer such basic questions that help us better understand our universe.

GAZETTE: What are you at work on now?

RANDALL: I'm currently thinking about a couple of different questions. One major research focus is the matter that isn't part of the Standard Model, namely dark matter. That is matter that doesn't interact via the forces like electromagnetism under which ordinary matter interacts. We know about it because of its gravitational influence. We would like to know more about what it is.

Along with others, I'm thinking about the possibility that some part of the dark matter interacts under its own forces—dark light if you like. This could have dramatic effects on our galaxy and structure formation, all of which makes it rather rich and interesting.

Explore further: ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

ATLAS sees Higgs boson decay to fermions

Nov 28, 2013

The ATLAS experiment at CERN has released preliminary results that show evidence that the Higgs boson decays to two tau particles. Taus belong to a group of subatomic particles called the fermions, which ...

Could 'Higgsogenesis' explain dark matter?

Oct 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —The recently discovered Higgs boson is best known for its important role in explaining particle mass. But now some physicists are wondering if the Higgs could have played an equally significant ...

Nobel physics laureate Higgs 'overwhelmed' (Update)

Oct 08, 2013

British scientist Peter Higgs said he was "overwhelmed" after he and Belgium's Francois Englert were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics on Tuesday for their work on the Higgs Boson particle. ...

The Higgs boson: One year on

Jul 05, 2013

A year ago today, physicists from the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN proudly announced the discovery of a new boson looking very much like the Higgs boson.

Recommended for you

New approach to form non-equilibrium structures

18 hours ago

Although most natural and synthetic processes prefer to settle into equilibrium—a state of unchanging balance without potential or energy—it is within the realm of non-equilibrium conditions where new possibilities lie. ...

Nike krypton laser achieves spot in Guinness World Records

20 hours ago

A set of experiments conducted on the Nike krypton fluoride (KrF) laser at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) nearly five years ago has, at long last, earned the coveted Guinness World Records title for achieving "Highest ...

Chemist develops X-ray vision for quality assurance

Jul 24, 2014

It is seldom sufficient to read the declaration of contents if you need to know precisely what substances a product contains. In fact, to do this you need to be a highly skilled chemist or to have genuine ...

The future of ultrashort laser pulses

Jul 24, 2014

Rapid advances in techniques for the creation of ultra-short laser pulses promise to boost our knowledge of electron motions to an unprecedented level.

User comments : 154

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ant_oacute_nio354
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
The Higgs doesn't exist.

Antonio Saraiva
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
"Along with others, I'm thinking about the possibility that some part of the dark matter interacts under its own forces—dark light if you like."

Above quoted directly from the article.

What is this indiscernible quality you've labeled "dark light"? Light is the visible part of the electro-magnetic spectrum, wavelengths above & below that very tiny region are all "dark" (the human eye can't detect them). I wouldn't begrudge you the concept of dark matter emanating its own peculiar electro-magnetic wavelength, but Lisa, how is it "dark" & "light" at the same time?

antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 14, 2014
What is this indiscernible quality you've labeled "dark light"?

Exactly what she says: A force carrier AKIN to electromagnetic waves (but NOT electromagnetic waves) that does not interact (or only very weakly) with what we call 'ordinary' matter.

Just like dark matter seems not to interact (or only very weakly) with photons.

You can't go and claim that 'dark light' must have the same properties as regular light when dark matter obviously has different properties from regular matter.

Also note that the 'dark' in 'dark matter' (or 'dark energy' for that matter) does in no way, shape or form refer to the abilities of the human eye. Why would you even think that?
no fate
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
I was hoping more for a "boson reacts with field in this manner" kind of explanation. Especially after statements like:

"The Higgs boson is not directly responsible for mass. The Higgs field is. The boson is a particle that tells us our understanding of this mechanism is correct."

and

"We understand the basic building blocks of matter and the forces through which they interact. We now also know how they get their masses."

Like saying you know the exact route to the fountain of youth and when asked, answering that it is by boat and that the water is deep. Not quite satisfactory for statements as difinitive as she is making above.
Actually having the understanding as claimed above should result in stabilizing the boson for long enough to study it's properties in the very near future....can't wait.

Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 14, 2014
What is this indiscernible quality you've labeled "dark light"?


Exactly what she says: A force carrier AKIN to electromagnetic waves (but NOT electromagnetic waves) that does not interact (or only very weakly) with what we call 'ordinary' matter.


You can't go and claim that 'dark light' must have the same properties as regular light when dark matter obviously has different properties from regular matter.


Also note that the 'dark' in 'dark matter' (or 'dark energy' for that matter) does in no way, shape or form refer to the abilities of the human eye. Why would you even think that?


What is it you don't comprehend about "light"? It's electro-magnetism in the visible portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum, period. I'll bet even Zeph understands that.......
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 14, 2014
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 14, 2014
Henri Poincare, French mathematician, born April 29, 1854 died July 17, 1912. The quote above was made by him in 1908.

What we call "science" is a thing, a method, whose use completely escapes proponents of the so called "Electric Universe" quackery. The EU idea was simply made up, imagined if you will, as a means by which Velikovski could explain how Saturn could have been moved from the center of our solar system and replaced there by the sun. And all of this stems from his imaginings that paintings on cave walls were literal depictions of this imagined event.

What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study. The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored.

antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Jan 14, 2014
What is it you don't comprehend about "light"? It's electro-magnetism in the visible portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum, period.

Weird: People are talking about stuff like ultraviolet or infrared light all the time. what part of that is visible to you?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2014
What is it you don't comprehend about "light"? It's electro-magnetism in the visible portion of the electro-magnetic spectrum, period.


Weird: People are talking about stuff like ultraviolet or infrared light all the time. what part of that is visible to you?


......because they lie within the blue & red frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum & we can partially see those frequencies. Ever hear of anyone other than maybe yourself refer to the gamma ray frequency as "gamma light"?
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
Benni
In this case she used "Light" is a metaphor for any EM activity (and yes, mass can be considered "EM" activity). You know that and are just being obstinately literal for some arcane purpose. That elicits suspicion (re - no trust) in your arguments or understanding by others.

Cause and effect in action... cool.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
Benni
In this case she used "Light" is a metaphor for any EM activity (and yes, mass can be considered "EM" activity).


You know that because............she told you?

You know that and are just being obstinately literal for some arcane purpose. That elicits suspicion (re - no trust) in your arguments or understanding by others.


No, it's better called "science", six years of engineering school education in nuclear/electrical engineering & that's just for starters, it is that which elicits competence that stuffs we design in our engineering division make it to the furthest most corners of the solar system when sent.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
In this case she used "Light" is a metaphor for any EM activity (and yes, mass can be considered "EM" activity).


You know that because............she told you?

You know that and are just being obstinately literal for some arcane purpose. That elicits suspicion (re - no trust) in your arguments or understanding by others.


No, it's better called "science", six years of engineering school education in nuclear/electrical engineering & that's just for starters, it is that which elicits competence that stuffs we design in our engineering division make it to the furthest most corners of the solar system when sent.

Wow,
Her bad, I guess. How dare a Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science in Harvard's Department of Physics and an expert on particle physics use a different a definition of light then you...
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2014
Cut her some slack, tho. After all, she WAS just in Greece for a wedding. Probl'y even relaxed a little? I'll let her know to be more precise and check in with you on word choices from now on.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 14, 2014
Cut her some slack, tho. After all, she WAS just in Greece for a wedding. Probl'y even relaxed a little? I'll let her know to be more precise and check in with you on word choices from now on.


At least the world will once again be safe for science knowing you, Maggnus, Gawad, & AntPhy are on the job peddling the couch potato osmosis action of trekkie science that you've picked up from watching Star Trek reruns.
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Jan 14, 2014
At least the world will once again be safe for science knowing you, Maggnus, Gawad, & AntPhy are on the job peddling the couch potato osmosis action of trekkie science that you've picked up from watching Star Trek reruns.


Well, thanks for including me with them.
You must not like your job all that much, judging by the way you assert yourself here. Or perhaps you just need a vacation...
Regardless - Lighten up, Francis...
axemaster
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Benni: The previous posters are correct. The use of the term "light" here refers to EM radiation in general. When Randall says that dark matter might be interacting through "dark light", what she really means is that there might be a similarly long-ranged force (implying zero or near zero rest mass boson carriers) specific to dark matter.

Source: I am a physicist.
AmritSorli
2 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Higgs boson is a particle with life time E-22 second. How such an unstable particle could give mass to stable particles ?
Higgs boson is not more than a momentary flux of quantum vacuum energy caused by collisions of particles. We will publish article un that soon.

Yours Amrit Sorli
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Ever hear of anyone other than maybe yourself refer to the gamma ray frequency as "gamma light"?

How about every scientist who works on gamma ray or X-ray light sources? That's a very common term, y'know and you will find it all over rthe scientific literature?

Just because people who aren't into science seldom talk about light that way (because in everyday life you have very little use for talking about any other part of the spectrum) doesn't mean it's not used that way.

...and since this is an article about a physics issue she's absolutely correct to use the definition that is common in the physics community.
vlaaing peerd
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014

six years of engineering school education in nuclear/electrical engineering & that's just for starters, it is that which elicits competence that stuffs we design in our engineering division make it to the furthest most corners of the solar system when sent.


That is very nice, I'm so very happy for you. Might I suggest another few years training in communicative skills?

I think we're all perfectly allowed to disagree with each other, but I see no need to make a fuss about semantics or definition. If you'd like to call it a dark cow instead of light and explain the definition I'd be perfectly happy with that too.
Benni
2 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
I think we're all perfectly allowed to disagree with each other, but I see no need to make a fuss about semantics or definition. If you'd like to call it a dark cow instead of light and explain the definition I'd be perfectly happy with that too.


Words mean things, "dark light" thus means something. It carries the definition of "dark" & "light". Gamma ray spectroscopy is part of my job description & if you walk into our lab talking about "gamma ray light", your competence in the science of energy will come under quick scrutiny. The best communication skills are those semantics which precisely portray the subject matter under discussion. If "dark cow" & "dark light" are analogous expressions for you, so be it, just don't send out a resume looking for a position that contains meaningless psycho-babble in it & expect to be hired in a real world position doing the things I do in nuclear/electrical engineering.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 15, 2014
Henri Poincare, French mathematician, born April 29, 1854 died July 17, 1912. The quote above was made by him in 1908.

What we call "science" is a thing, a method, whose use completely escapes proponents of the so called "Electric Universe" quackery. The EU idea was simply made up, imagined if you will, as a means by which Velikovski could explain how Saturn could have been moved from the center of our solar system and replaced there by the sun. And all of this stems from his imaginings that paintings on cave walls were literal depictions of this imagined event.

What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study. The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored.


Only in your own deluded eyes, unless of course you are intentionally lying which wouldn't be a surprise. Only a moron such as yourself would suggest such a ridiculous notion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Only in your own deluded eyes, unless of course you are intentionally lying which wouldn't be a surprise. Only a moron such as yourself would suggest such a ridiculous notion.


@cantdrive
about which notion? this one?
What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study

or this one?
The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored

or are you referring to this?
What we call "science" is a thing, a method


because from every scientist i've ever talked to, they ALL say
"Electric Universe" quackery

and
as a means by which Velikovski could explain how Saturn could have been moved from the center of our solar system and replaced there by the sun

really is quackery...

so please be specific about which notion you feel is ridiculous.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 15, 2014
Only in your own deluded eyes, unless of course you are intentionally lying which wouldn't be a surprise. Only a moron such as yourself would suggest such a ridiculous notion.


@cantdrive
about which notion? this one?
What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study

or this one?
The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored

or are you referring to this?
What we call "science" is a thing, a method


because from every scientist i've ever talked to, they ALL say
"Electric Universe" quackery

and
as a means by which Velikovski could explain how Saturn could have been moved from the center of our solar system and replaced there by the sun

really is quackery...

so please be specific about which notion you feel is ridiculous.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Benni: The previous posters are correct. The use of the term "light" here refers to EM radiation in general. When Randall says that dark matter might be interacting through "dark light", what she really means is that there might be a similarly long-ranged force (implying zero or near zero rest mass boson carriers) specific to dark matter.

Source: I am a physicist.


Mr physicist at MIT, go to a dictionary & look up the definition of "light". The science of energy is obviously not part of your job description for teaching first semester physics.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jan 15, 2014
Higgs boson is a particle with life time E-22 second. How such an unstable particle could give mass to stable particles ?
Higgs boson is not more than a momentary flux of quantum vacuum energy caused by collisions of particles. We will publish article un that soon.

Yours Amrit Sorli


Wow... You're saying they "created" their own boson that matched their predictions?
Nestle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
How such an unstable particle could give mass to stable particles
The role of Higgs field can be understood easily with water surface analogy of space-time for energy spreading. If the water surface would be fully homogeneous, then the water surface ripples wouldn't interfere each other and they would penetrate like the ghosts. But because it does contain tiny density fluctuations of Brownian noise, every deform of water surface increases the number of density fluctuations exposed to surface: as such the mass density of every wave is proportional its energy density. These fluctuations are shortliving, but they're many of them. What we are observing in the role of Higgs boson is just a very tiny fraction of quantum fluctuations of vacuum, which is dominant from geometric reasons.
Nestle
3 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
they "created" their own boson that matched their predictions?
Of course not, but there is still lotta subjectivism in Higgs boson interpretation. For example, I'm convinced, there are multiple Higgs bosons recognizable in LHC data already, but the physicists tend to ignore them, because A) they ignore everything bellow 5 sigma by their definition of finding B) Higgs & Englert based their theory on a single resonance and they already got a Nobel prize for it. It would undermine the social status of Nobel prize, laureates and jury, if we would admit just after few months, that the Higgs mechanism is actually based on different model, which these chaps didn't expect C) It's more strategical to have some findings prepared for future, because the LHC needs to justify its upgrade and further run before tax payers and sponsors. Keep on mind, this is solely my personal opinion in this matter and I can still be wrong (which is not my way though).
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 15, 2014
Zephyr is back! Using sock puppets is going to get you into trouble.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2014
Higgs boson is a particle with life time E-22 second. How such an unstable particle could give mass to stable particles ?

@AmritSorli
every article I ever read about the Higgs states that it is the Higgs FIELD that gives mass, NOT the particle
besides... you statement of unstable particle makes no sense... free neutrons have a mean lifetime of 15 minutes but...
The role of Higgs field can be understood easily with water surface analogy of space-time for energy spreading

here we go with this again... sigh

so Nestle/Osteta is Zephyr and we will now have articles flooded with Aether hypothesis

Keep on mind, this is solely my personal opinion in this matter and I can still be wrong (which is not my way though)

at least you labelled this as opinion.
you are getting better
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2014
@cantdrive
about which notion?

Well...

What we call "science" is a thing, a method, whose use completely escapes proponents of the so called "Electric Universe"

Utter lie that completely ignores the laboratory research of men such as Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, C. Bruce, Peratt, etc...

Velikovski could explain how Saturn could have been moved from the center of our solar system and replaced there by the sun.

This is where the moron shows up. His understanding is skewed, based on I don't know what. Misinformation is another tool for those who constantly use fallacious arguments.

"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
Richard Nixon
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2014
What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study. The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored.

Psychogenetic Fallacy
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 16, 2014
Utter lie that completely ignores the laboratory research of men such as Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, C. Bruce, Peratt, etc...

@Cantdrive85
IMHO- it doesn't "ignore" the lab research, it just doesn't put the same emphasis.

You are saying that the EU/PU hypothesis effectively describes the universe and everything in reality, whereas the most effective methods are what is in place now and being taught.

The EU/PU that you posit is what is being ignored... not the individual findings, that is, unless those findings have been proven false, or there is a BETTER alternative
(like our discussion about Saturn's Hex-storm)

and given the posts by others in the field, or in the know, it seems apparent that your speculations are due to either ignorance on certain subjects, or blind faith in your EU/PU

others have pointed out that you have flawed logic and maths, and posted links in support of their assertions (again, see Saturn comments)

so put your jawbone down... you wont need it here
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 16, 2014
You are saying that the EU/PU hypothesis effectively describes the universe and everything in reality,

More fallacy, I never claimed such a thing. It effectively describes much, including the behavior of plasma which consists of 99.999% of the matter in the Universe.

whereas the most effective methods are what is in place now and being taught.

More fallacy, appeal to widespread belief.

The EU/PU that you posit is what is being ignored... not the individual findings,

The "individual findings" paint a coherent picture that is consistent with the processes of an electrified plasma, as has been proven through laboratory experiment. You can't acknowledge something such as the earth's birkeland currents and their effects on the aurora without taking it a step further as to where, how, and why those currents are formed. The how and why are provided for by PC, whereas the "standard" model continues to be surprised by that which was predicted by the plasma model.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Cantdrive85 states
More fallacy, I never claimed such a thing. It effectively describes much, including the behavior of plasma which consists of 99.999% of the matter in the Universe

you have not directly stated this...
however, you post EU/PU hypothesis for just about everything written on the site
(see http://phys.org/n...irstCmt)
More fallacy, appeal to widespread belief

reality
if your EU/PU was viable, it would be taught
but given the simple fact that EU/PU theory cant even get it right for our own Sun:

according to (one of the great many) links you have left, your theory states that the granulation on the surface of our sun cannot be caused by convection (Juergen)
and lets not even get into the inverse square law that EU/PU says our sun doesn't conform to...

I would call THAT a whoopsie!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
The "individual findings" paint a coherent picture that is consistent with the processes of an electrified plasma, as has been proven through laboratory experiment

@Cantdrive
"SOME" individual findings are accurate, and paint a coherent picture. We know this because SOME of those findings are being used by fusion experts to build a fusion reactor
The how and why are provided for by PC, whereas the "standard" model continues to be surprised by that which was predicted by the plasma model

if ANYTHING is a fallacy, this is!
Do I really need to keep beating on about http://phys.org/n...irstCmt?

The BB model may not be perfect, or even complete, however the theory IS modified whenever we get info that changes things. Unlike YOUR model
when something better comes along, it will either augment what we have, or replace it.
EU/PU must be lacking, as it has been dismissed by the best
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
@Cantdrive85
one last thing about your EU/PU
Hmmm. Towards the end of my research I found a notation on Wikipedia about why "Electric Universe Theory" had been removed. Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the "electric universe" and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the "electric universe theory". Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the "electric universe" but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Well, it seems this is not a theory that anyone should be hanging their hat on.


http://neutrinodr...ked.html

doesn't look good for EU/PU's future!

reality wins again
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 16, 2014
Mr physicist at MIT, go to a dictionary & look up the definition of "light".

Well, if I go to the wikipedia page on 'light' I find the following paragraph:
In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not


Since she is a physicist talking to a University Gazette I'd hazard that this is intended for students (i.e. educated people). So her usage is entirely correct.
shavera
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Benni, as yet another physicist, studying in high energy, I'm gonna go ahead and agree with aa_p here. Light pretty much means EM radiation of any kind. That's a fairly standard usage in the sciences. When we want to refer to *visible* light, we usually, you know, say visible light. There's no such thing as "dark light." That's dumb.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
Psychogenetic Fallacy
Making up stuff doesn't help your cause cantdrive.
Utter lie that completely ignores the laboratory research of men such as Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, C. Bruce, Peratt, etc...
No, it doesn't ignore their contributions to science at all. I said EU proponents don't understand science nor the scientific method. Birkeland, Alfven, Langmuir and Bruce are all dead, so I suggest that any scientific work they are doing is not going to be well communicated.
I say that YOU, and others like you, don't understand the methodology of the science those scientists did.
His understanding is skewed, based on I don't know what.
Oh, please, enlighten me. What don't I understand? Are you saying that Velikovsky (he's dead too, BTW) didn't propose what I've said?
Maggnus
1 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2014
Ya Benni, I'm going to have to go with the definition of light as taking in all types of EM radiation as well.

Dictionary definition: c : electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength that travels in a vacuum with a speed of about 186,281 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second; specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye.

Note this is not exactly the same definition as used by physicists, they mean it to encompass all EM radiation not just visible light.

As aa_p said, she was talking to physicists, so I think its safe to assume that she meant what the physicists would understand as "light".
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
you have not directly stated this. however, you post EU/PU hypothesis for just about everything written on the site

At least you have the self respect to admit to lying. Once again, the sign of a complete cosmology is it's applicability to many phenomena. Check.

according to links you have left, your theory states that the granulation on the surface of our sun cannot be caused by convection (Juergen)

Actually, direct observation by "standard" theorists has shown the convection to be only 1% of the needed convection to support the "standard" hydrodynamic numerical model.
http://arxiv.org/...6154.pdf
The Juergen's claim is made based upon the highly ordered nature of the photosphere, something that chaotic convection models (shown to be wrong) cannot explain.
Whoopsie....

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
"SOME" individual findings are accurate, and paint a coherent picture.

No, "some" findings are accepted because the evidence is irrefutable. Take aurora theory for example, in direct contradiction to Birkeland's lab research, Chapman et al. developed an hypothesis for the creation of the aurora using a strictly theoretical approach (a method still used by astrophysicists) which was completely wrong. Birkeland's theory, which was actively censored by Chapman, was based upon empirical lab research was ignored until in situ measurements confirmed his theory in the early 70's. With considerable egg on their face they begrudgingly accepted his theory, but sadly only the portion that was irrefutable was accepted whereas the long line of REQUIRED processes that enable such an event to happen are still ignored.

peer reviewed are not about the "electric universe" but about plasma cosmology

The EU is based upon the science of PC (or PU), merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
The "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

Utter lie! I wonder if you'll admit to that one too?
https://docs.goog...T3c/edit
http://ieeexplore...=4287093
http://ieeexplore...=4287017
Then there is the extensive work of C.R. Bruce;
http://www.catast...s/bruce/

What other lies do you want to spread? Argument by laziness and ignorance.

It should also be noted the American Institute of Physics has recently approved "Plasma Universe" (the basis for EUT) as an official field of study in physics!

however the theory (BB) IS modified whenever we get info that changes things.

Yep, the BB is the ultimate in "modified" theories. How convenient.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2014
Once again, the sign of a complete cosmology is it's applicability to many phenomena. Check.

Well, you have applied it on this site to friggin' psychology. If that isn't mad I don't know what is. Checkmate.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Psychogenetic Fallacy

Making up stuff doesn't help your cause

Here is a full list of your argument tactics;
http://www.don-li...nts.html
No, it doesn't ignore their contributions to science at all. I said EU proponents don't understand science nor the scientific method. Birkeland, Alfven, Langmuir and Bruce are all dead,

Right, that's why it took 70 years for Birkeland's aurora theory to be considered. Only AFTER in situ measurements precluded any other explanation.

Oh, please, enlighten me. What don't I understand? Are you saying that Velikovsky (he's dead too, BTW) didn't propose what I've said?

The dynamics involved a stellar (Saturn) capture by the Sun. Earth, Mars, and possibly Venus were satellites of Saturn, all of which were redistributed (with a lot of calamity) in the Sun's already existent solar system. By the looks of our oddball solar system, the Sun may have been capturing smaller stars for quite sometime.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2014
Once again, the sign of a complete cosmology is it's applicability to many phenomena. Check.

Well, you have applied it on this site to friggin' psychology. If that isn't mad I don't know what is. Checkmate.


Where was that? Psychology, huh? Alrighty then.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
At least you have the self respect to admit to lying

@cantdrive85
I didnt lie
I made a statement based upon observation that appears to be true
Once again, the sign of a complete cosmology is it's applicability to many phenomena. Check.

I know
but your EU/PU is NOT a good hypothesis as it cannot even make valid assumptions about our sun
The Juergen's claim is made based upon the highly ordered nature of the photosphere, something that chaotic convection models (shown to be wrong) cannot explain

Juergen assumes that the Reynolds number controls convection but it doesn't; convection is controlled by the Rayleigh number. The Rayleigh number is a function of the temperature, gravity, the degree of temperature change, stickiness and how diffuse the temperature is. So Juergen made a mistake, oops. The convection that we see on the sun can be explained without throwing away physics.

(more to come)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Cantdrive85 attempts a feint with:
"some" findings are accepted because the evidence is irrefutable

this is true, BUT
the findings that you often latch onto and try to use do NOT explain many of the phenomenon that you attempt to use them ON
thats right, I am going to beat the dead horse of Saturn again
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
The EU is based upon the science of PC (or PU), merely standing on the shoulders of giants

as I said before... the EU is outdated and proven false by almost ALL the greatest scientists, except those who's disdain for the quackery does not allow them to stoop as low as to argue with the fanatical followers
whom do not accept empirical data, by the way
(see above Saturn link)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
Cantdrive85 stabs himself in the foot with
It should also be noted the American Institute of Physics has recently approved "Plasma Universe" (the basis for EUT) as an official field of study in physics!

plasma PHYSICS is a valid field of study in physics
all the links I saw were linked back to PU site except 1 japanese paper
Apparently there are only a few people who currently publish ideas on the "electric universe" and those people publish exclusively on the internet or vanity presses. They use very misleading citations gleaned from mainstream sources in an attempt to lend credibility to the "electric universe theory". Most papers listed as peer reviewed are not about the "electric universe" but about plasma cosmology (a different idea). The "electric universe" has no single paper subject to peer review about its ideas.

care to explain THAT?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
cantdrive85 gets silly with
By the looks of our oddball solar system, the Sun may have been capturing smaller stars for quite sometime.

ah... I hadn't realised we were in a binary (or multi-star) solar system... where are they?
The dynamics involved a stellar (Saturn) capture by the Sun. Earth, Mars, and possibly Venus were satellites of Saturn, all of which were redistributed (with a lot of calamity) in the Sun's already existent solar system.

your proof?
but I have seen what you think passes for proof and given that YOU dont understand it, I dont suppose anyone else will
but...i must ask anyway
the BB is the ultimate in "modified" theories. How convenient

this is what happens to good science/theories
you modify the most accurate one with new data gleaned from observation/experimentation
the electric universe theory was based on outdated information from 1976


well, cantdrive... at least you are consistent
a preacher without a clue
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
cantdrive85 cant read when he posts
Utter lie! I wonder if you'll admit to that one too?
https://docs.goog...T3c/edit
http://ieeexplore...=4287093
http://ieeexplore...=4287017
Then there is the extensive work of C.R. Bruce;
http://www.catast...s/bruce/


of your links, I read EVERY reference, and there were absolutely NO references to the "electric universe"
I DID see plasma cosmology, but NO electric universe
I saw your buddy Alfven, but NO electric universe!
i saw other people you mention, but NO ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!
so... it is NOT a lie... YOU are deluded!

Like I said
plasma physics is a valid study field

and YOU are obviously NOT capable of understanding it as I have watched others destroy your arguments easily
again, I refer you to dead horse #1
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

reality wins YET AGAIN
Nestle
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2014
What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study. The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored.
IMO it's just misunderstanding based on physics. In Universe we can observe many phenomena, which do appear like the electromagnetic phenomena at large distances - but they're actually gravitomagnetic phenomena. The gravitomagnetism didn't get its name accidentally - it's phenomenologically quite similar to plasma phenomena due to homomorphism of equations involved. I presume most of so-called "plasma Universe" phenomena are actually driven with dark matter interactions instead - they do appear similarly, but they do apply at different (i.e. much larger) scales.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 16, 2014
What motivates cantdrive85 to post in defence of such obvious and outright fabrications is an interesting psychological study. The psychology behind such blind acceptance of such a clearly flawed idea should be explored.
IMO it's just misunderstanding based on physics. In Universe we can observe many phenomena, which do appear like the electromagnetic phenomena at large distances - but they're actually gravitomagnetic phenomena. The gravitomagnetism didn't get its name accidentally - it's phenomenologically quite similar to plasma phenomena due to http://i.imgur.com/jYLjHcK.gif involved. I presume most of so-called "plasma Universe" phenomena are actually driven with dark matter interactions instead - they do appear similarly, but they do apply at different (i.e. much larger) scales.

And that Dark Matter is explained here;
http://arxiv.org/...2245.pdf
or here;
http://inis.iaea....33029448
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 16, 2014
plasma PHYSICS is a valid field of study in physics
all the links I saw were linked back to PU site except 1 japanese paper

Yes, and it is "A PUBLICATION OF THE IEEE NUCLEAR AND PLASMA SCIENCES SOCIETY" and the site is hosted on Los Alamos National Labs computers. The author of the site (Anthony Peratt) is a senior plasma scientist there. All of the papers were originally published in "reputable" journals, this is just collection he has accumulated. I can't imagine how where it's located matters in the validity of the science. All the relevant papers are peer-reviewed, all you have to do is follow up on them if you want "proof".

again, I refer you to dead horse #1
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Because in your mind some resolution or "proof" was shown in the brief comments that qualifies as a solved "scientific" theory? You don't think NASA would've considered your explanation? Why then do they still considered it "mysterious"?
Nestle
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 16, 2014
some part of the dark matter interacts under its own forces—dark light if you like
Try to consider this sentence: the dark matter particles have their own gravitational charge and they can interact with low-distance interactions, which resemble the light wave interactions. The difference is in scale, where these forces do apply. The problem of plasma Universe guys is, they're don't bother with quantitative part of their deductions very much - particularly because the actual portion of charged particles inside of interstellar gas is freely adjustable parameter - so that they assume the existence of various interactions even at the distances, which the electromagnetic theory cannot explain. The plasma Universe is homological and interpretative science, rather than predicative rigorous theory and it's pushed into areas, where plasma physics has nothing to do. This is my private stance about it - and you know, I'm rather opened to semiclassical interpretations outside of mainstream.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2014
Well said Zephyr. I am humbled and a bit astonished.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2014
That why I was as polite and genuine as possible in welcoming Zeph back, he's respectful (mostly) and makes legit points not the usual hand waving.

gunnqu
3.5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
All well-known elementary bosons are gauge. Apparently, the found by LHC 125-126 particle represents some hadron multipoet.

Every physics event is interpretted by particles which similar well-known elementary particles - leptons, quarks and gauge bosons. Therefore, if anybody will claim that he had found Higgs then not believe - this is not Higgs. http://arxiv.org/...302013v3 , Quznetsov G 2013 Logical foundation of fundamental theoretical physics (Lambert Academic Publ.)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2014
Cantdrive says
Because in your mind some resolution or "proof" was shown in the brief comments that qualifies as a solved "scientific" theory? You don't think NASA would've considered your explanation? Why then do they still considered it "mysterious"?

apparently you cant read?
Try re-reading the arguments on http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
and dont put words in my mouth
Yes, and it is "A PUBLICATION ... if you want "proof"

and this validates the EU hypothesis how? Because you base it upon his papers?
Well, according to the creationists, THEY use SCIENCE to conclude the earth is no older than about 10,000 yrs... so I guess, by your argument, they are just as valid as EU?

right then.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2014
apparently you cant read?
Try re-reading the arguments on http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
and dont put words in my mouth

How in the world can I put words in your mouth when Maggnuts dick is already there? Where's the "proof"? Lots of claims too be more right with the typical hand waving.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 17, 2014
Aww look at little candrive, getting all mad and stomping his little feet! Isn't that cute? What's a matter, don't like being forced to look at things logically instead of your usual knee-jerk "EU explains everything" mode?
Maybe you should go back and look at the cave paintings some more, might lead to some inspiration for you.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 17, 2014
Aww look at little candrive, getting all mad and stomping his little feet! Isn't that cute? What's a matter, don't like being forced to look at things logically instead of your usual knee-jerk "EU explains everything" mode?
Maybe you should go back and look at the cave paintings some more, might lead to some inspiration for you.

Do you have the capability to NOT argue from fallacy? Obviously not.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
cantdrive stamps his foot with
Do you have the capability to NOT argue from fallacy? Obviously not.


do YOU have the capability to argue with VALID science, physics, and actually UNDERSTAND what it means?
obviously not!

the argument goes both ways, Cantdrive

you argue an outdated method proven wrong years ago, and attempt to assign plasma physics to it.
just because you LINK a site, does not mean you are correct in your assumptions...

and getting mad and lashing out?
like THAT proves anything?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
you argue an outdated method proven wrong years ago, and attempt to assign plasma physics to it.


Could you point that out for me? I ascribe to PC/EU because of their success and accuracy in prediction and observation, but if you have "proof" to the contrary maybe I'll change my viewpoint. Remember, I need "PROOF" as you like to put it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 17, 2014
I ascribe to PC/EU because of their success and accuracy in prediction and observation,

@Cantdrive85
I would LOVE to see this proof!
But if your past is any indication, we will get a lot of this:
Q's links discussed kelvin helmholtz instabilities of gases/fluids, looks cool but it's not applicable to this plasma. Diocotron instabilities in plasma is what drives these formations

[sic]
and the above comment shows that it is YOU who does not understand

as well as:
aroc91 posted
Snowflakes are hexagonal due to water's crystal structure, not electricity, you moron

so cantdrive replies with
Yes, and what causes water's crystal structure, moron...
And t's not electricity, it's the electric force.

[sic]

thus my comments about
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

by all means... tell us how the electric force changes the water in THIS link:
http://phys.org/n...ces.html

that would help your cause
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 17, 2014
I ascribe to PC/EU because of their success and accuracy in prediction and observation,
They have made no correct prediction. They have claimed to have predicted something after the event. They have claimed to have made a correct prediction after moving the goal posts when they're original prediction did not pan out. Nostradamus apologists do that too. That does not an observation make!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2014
@Maggnus
check out this link

http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html" title="http://http://www.tim-thompson.com/faqs.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.tim-th...aqs.html

look at the links under "Anti Catastrophist Writings"
Tim Thompson is a retired JPL physicist... http://www.tim-thompson.com/

I think he does a pretty good job destroying the EU hypothesis... LMFAO

kinda shows that the EU predictive power is pretty much NIL

so...trust Cantdrive, who didnt know that the diocotron instability is the plasma analog of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in fluid mechanics
(which is the THIRD SENTENCE on this link: https://en.wikipe...tability )

or trust the former JPL physicist?

Wow... hard one, huh?

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Maggnus
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 18, 2014
Thanks Stumpy! I know Tim Thompson, and I have corresponded with him over a number of different issues relating to solar physics. I guess you missed the link I put up to his site previously, and I'm happy you found it on your own.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Jan 18, 2014
Thanks Stumpy! I know Tim Thompson, and I have corresponded with him over a number of different issues relating to solar physics. I guess you missed the link I put up to his site previously, and I'm happy you found it on your own.

i must have totally missed it... when did you post it? i only started here recently (March 2013)... and i didnt even read a lot of the comments at first.

if you have any more (debunking EU/ Aether/ANYTHING like that), please post them!
wish the PM function was working, i would send you my e-mail addy to send stuff faster/more efficiently.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 19, 2014
Thompson is a tool, an ignorant tool who tries to tear down yet he does't even understand the basics.
http://electric-c...nder.pdf

Dr. Scott discusses Tim "Tool" Thompson's erroneous claims about the Reynolds and Rayleigh numbers and the inverse square law claims you recently made, it's either stupidity or misinformation on the "Tool's" part. Thompson's "tool kit" for scientific fundamentalism is largely the same tool kit maggnuts and many around here use, the bible of fallacious arguments. I doubt you'll admit reading the link if you do, it's a little embarrassing for your "expert from JPL".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
@Cantdrive
you are wrong... i will read it.
and i will gladly forward it to Thompson so that he can directly refute it.
fair is fair, after all.

call him all the names you want, he obviously has a better handle on things that you do.

i will also do a page by page comparison to insure that the argument quotes are not misrepresented or misquoted.

you dont mind if i quote you above when i send this to him, do you?
of course not... why else would you publicly announce it, right? but to draw attention?

i hope he is not feeling litigious

see you soon
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 19, 2014
@cantdrive
just FYI - i forwarded your message to Mr Thompson
also, i am reading your PDF

and so far, it is not as impressive as i thought it would be.
there are plenty of problems that i am catching and i am NO physicist.
that does NOT bode well for your document...

by the way... that "tool kit" that people use against you is not some "fundamentalism" or some "bible of fallacious arguments", it is simple, good-old-fashioned science mixed in with reality.

catch you later.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
@cantdrive
just FYI - i forwarded your message to Mr Thompson
i hope he is not feeling litigious

LOL, So now I have to worry about excavating the "Tool's" tool from your mouth too? A double stuff?

you dont mind if i quote you above when i send this to him, do you?

Please, by all means.

and so far, it is not as impressive as i thought it would be.
there are plenty of problems that i am catching and i am NO physicist.
that does NOT bode well for your document...

Please, in your ultimate wisdom, do expound. Explain where this electrical engineering professor of 30+ years is incorrect in describing his use of electrical theory.

The Electric Sun is not based upon the pith ball electrostatics that the "tool" has used to "prove" the model wrong. Fact is, he has never addressed the proper model using the correct physics, likely due to ignorance of the physics involved.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
@Mag

Ya Benni, I'm going to have to go with the definition of light as taking in all types of EM radiation as well.


.......then you too need to take a second semester physics course to learn where to locate the visible light spectrum on the electromagnetic chart. The visible light spectrum has its own peculiar location within the energy (electromagnetic) spectrum which is the reason the radio frequencies are not referred to as "radio light" or "microwave light", gamma rays are not referred to a "gamma light", etc, have you ever noticed that Mag? How about the rest of you above? All light is electromagnetism, but not all electromagnetism is light.......I learned this in 1st semester chemistry before I even got to second semester physics. You've become part of a pod of groupies at this site trying to defend indefensible statements with no science background to support your conclusion.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 19, 2014
You've become part of a pod of groupies at this site trying to defend indefensible statements with no science background to support your conclusion.


I've got my own pod of groupies;
https://sciencex....5/?v=act

Maggnutts and barakn are like a couple AORN ballot stuffers.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
You've become part of a pod of groupies at this site trying to defend indefensible statements with no science background to support your conclusion.


I've got my own pod of groupies;
https://sciencex....5/?v=act

Maggnutts and barakn are like a couple AORN ballot stuffers.

That's ACORN.
And lest we not forget Shavera.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2014
.......then you too need to take a second semester physics course to learn where to locate the visible light spectrum on the electromagnetic chart. The visible light spectrum has its own peculiar location within the energy (electromagnetic) spectrum which is the reason the radio frequencies are not referred to as "radio light" or "microwave light", gamma rays are not referred to a "gamma light", etc, have you ever noticed that Mag? How about the rest of you above? All light is electromagnetism, but not all electromagnetism is light.......I learned this in 1st semester chemistry before I even got to second semester physics. You've become part of a pod of groupies at this site trying to defend indefensible statements with no science background to support your conclusion.

Actually... I think the hot looking doctor used it in the broader context, working from the perception that others in her field would get what she means...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Cant think regurgitates
Please, in your ultimate wisdom, do expound. Explain where this electrical engineering professor of 30+ years is incorrect in describing his use of electrical theory

well for starters, when I can spot errors in copy/paste leaving out relevant arguments
when someone intentionally misconstrues the context...
when someone violates freshman physics...

here is something to think about
I was unpleasantly surprised as I found I could
hardly go 2-3 pages in Scott's book without finding major ridiculous claims.
-W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.

which is a running theme in all your EU hypothesis sites... then even I can assume, at that point, that the argument is going to be invalid as it is basing its argument on invalid assumptions and math.

I will get back to you later when I am finished.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2014
Thompson is a tool, an ignorant tool who tries to tear down yet he does't even understand the basics.
http://electric-c...er.pdf".
How droll! The best part about that response cantdrive, is that all one has to do is read that claptrap from 20 years ago to realize that those responses that are not ad hominem are hopelessly outdated.

Seems Tim has gotten your goat lol. I will certainly take the word of a working physicist who stands to receive nothing for his time over a hopelessly overclassed engineer whose book sales depend on his obfuscating the science as much as he possibly can.

Laughably moronic!
whitewalking
not rated yet Jan 20, 2014
In the interview, Lisa Randall said that most of the mass of common matter is a result of the strong binding force in those protons and neutrons. She talked about two components of mass. Does the Standard Model explain mass as the sum of the (1) strong binding force among quarks (and possibly the strong binding forces among their associated gluons), plus the (2) weak force among quarks and leptons (which apparently doesn't have a binding energy - so I don't know if it counts), plus the (3) electromagnetic virtual particles between electrons (and other leptons) and the built up products of quarks (like the protons and neutrons), and finally the (3) Higgs field interactions with both quarks and leptons, or am I missing something here? My assumptions are probably showing but my basic college physics courses are two decades out of date.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
Thompson is a tool, an ignorant tool who tries to tear down yet he does't even understand the basics.
http://electric-c...er.pdf".
How droll! The best part about that response cantdrive, is that all one has to do is read that claptrap from 20 years ago to realize that those responses that are not ad hominem are hopelessly outdated.

Seems Tim has gotten your goat lol. I will certainly take the word of a working physicist who stands to receive nothing for his time over a hopelessly overclassed engineer whose book sales depend on his obfuscating the science as much as he possibly can.

Laughably moronic!

Appeal to authority still? Lots of hand waving and misinformation but little substance as usual.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 20, 2014
well for starters, when I can spot errors in copy/paste leaving out relevant arguments
when someone intentionally misconstrues the context...
when someone violates freshman physics...

http://www.latime...qywMyORG

For the sake of any kind of real discussion about the science of the EU, for god's sake man, point out something specific.

I was unpleasantly surprised as I found I could
hardly go 2-3 pages in Scott's book without finding major ridiculous claims.
-W.T. Bridgman, Ph.D.

First T-T-Timmy Timmy, now Tommy? At least Timmy is a "reputable" scientist, Tommy is a complete dolt. Stephen J. Crothers discusses him over here;
http://www.sjcrot...man.html

and Dr. Scott has a rejoinder as well;
http://electric-c...utTB.pdf

broken link here;
http://www.plasma...1995.pdf

Another example of TB being wrong;

http://prl.aps.or.../e235002
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (6) Jan 28, 2014
I am the same Tim Thompson that "cantdrive85" likes to call an "ignorant tool", derisively calling me "Timmy", perhaps in the hope that I will feel injured in some way. Nice try, but if name calling is the best you have, I guess my arguments must just be too good to refute directly. And if you are going to pick on people referring to me as an "appeal to authority" flaw, since when is your own appeal to Scott any different?

I have written the first part of a response to Scott's seriously flawed "rebuttal" to my arguments. Both my original page and his rebuttal are quite old now (2004 & 2007, respectively). Nevertheless, after several requests, I guess an updated response is in order. Find it here:
http://www.tim-th...l_1.html

The hypothesis of electric stars does just what I said it does: Very strongly violate the laws of physics as we know them.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jan 29, 2014
"Science, above all, is firmly based on the simple concept of reasonable inference from observation" Tim Thompson

Great statement, one that garners even further support when laboratory experiment confirms those "inferences". Such as demonstrated by Birkeland, Langmuir, Alfven, Bostick, Peratt, and others, and that is not an appeal as you should be well aware of all of their published papers as well since much of what we're discussing here is plasma processes. Why would one assume that if plasma requires an electric input on Earth, why wouldn't it require the same input throughout the cosmos?
Silly notion we must cast aside physics to support EU, cast aside hypotheses yes, physics no. One definite aspect of the "standard" theory requires us to cast aside known physics, and that is the photospheric heat sink. 15,000,000k in core to 6,000k and then back up to +5,000,000k in corona, such a notion defies physics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
@cantdrive
One definite aspect of the "standard" theory requires us to cast aside known physics, and that is the photospheric heat sink. 15,000,000k in core to 6,000k and then back up to +5,000,000k in corona, such a notion defies physics

references? links? proof?
anything other than personal conjecture?

feel free to elaborate and provide legitimate references
ones that DONT link back to PSEUDO-SCIENCE CRACKPOT SITES
if the science is legit and you think you have a leg to stand on, use REAL references/links

@Tim Thompson
Thank you for that paper and those links/references/books
the level of dedication of the EU acolyte is stunning given the amount of reputable science refuting it...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jan 29, 2014
Cantdrive, you are hand-waving. The laboratory experiments complete by the group of men you name do not disprove anything said by Tim. The plasma processes in the sun are well established and clearly in line with the aspects of solar physics which Tim discusses in his paper. That you choose to retreat into claims that the work of those men is somehow overlooked or not important to our overall understanding of the processes which power the sun says more about your inability to follow the discussion than any repudiation of the argument put forth by Tim.
You proclaim that the EU model of the sun is a better fit to the observations of the sun than the fusion constructs outlined by Tim (and many others), yet your only response to his review of our current understanding of what powers the sun is that he somehow overlooks the works of Birkeland et al. So outline your model. Why should we view an electric sun as a better fit to our observations of the sun?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
One definite aspect of the "standard" theory requires us to cast aside known physics, and that is the photospheric heat sink. 15,000,000k in core to 6,000k and then back up to +5,000,000k in corona, such a notion defies physics.
On what basis do you make this claim? I have seen a couple of studies that discuss magnetic phenomena that may provide an answer using our current physics. That should be right up your alley, so this should be a fairly simple question for you to answer.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 29, 2014
@Cantdrive
maybe this link will help you understand?

http://www.tim-th...ion.html

go just past the Neutrino's ( a little mor than halfway down) and start to read
he talks about helioseismology
i would read the WHOLE PAGE though, if i were you
you might just learn something

Maggnus
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
I have an idea cantdrive. Given you appear unable to defend the EU position, how about you invite Mr. Scott to come have a whack at it? We have Mr. Thompson's interest, so maybe Mr. Scott will deign to join us poor unwashed folk for a discussion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 29, 2014
@cantdrive
here is a link to a page that will also help you learn
I hope it helps
it should answer some of your questions
feel free to read it
it is a good link

http://www.astron...n/s2.htm

any way to set up a forum to address this now that the PM function is not working?
or you can post your e-mail address cd!

why is it that no one in the EU community wants to fence with W.T."Tom" Bridgman?

lastly, if you have any questions after reading those pages, feel free to let us know
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (6) Jan 29, 2014
One definite aspect of the "standard" theory requires us to cast aside known physics, and that is the photospheric heat sink. 15,000,000k in core to 6,000k and then back up to +5,000,000k in corona, such a notion defies physics.


Not at all true. The temperature minimum in the photosphere is a necessary consequence, required by the laws of physics, not by any stretch of the imagination are these phenomena in any way contradictory to physics as we know it. That claim comes from people in the EU camp who (a) do not know what the world "temperature" actually means; (b) are ignorant of both the kinetic theory of gases and the phenomena of plasma waves; (c) ignore the significance of energy density and energy gradients. Once the physics is dealt with in a professional way, rather than an amateur way, all of the apparent paradoxes go away.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
The temperature minimum in the photosphere is a necessary consequence, required by the laws of physics,

Really, please explain that "necessary consequence" of the heat sink.

are ignorant of both the kinetic theory of gases

I thought we were talking about plasma, what does gas theory have to do with it? Oh right, you like to use those "models we know to be wrong from experimentation" that Alfven ridiculed astrophysicists for using. You know the models created by theoreticians who "have never seen a plasma in a laboratory" and which sadly the plasma just "doesn't understand how elegant the theories are and absolutely refuses to follow them..."

Being that the conditions of the corona was a complete surprise, any explanations you come up with are a posteriori and ad hoc. A contrary to your hubris, some still think that coronal heating is still a mystery and has not been "solved" as you falsely claim.
http://www.cfa.ha...su201304
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
why is it that no one in the EU community wants to fence with W.T."Tom" Bridgman?

Probably because it's like pissing into the wind...
http://www.sjcrot...man.html

Dr. Scott replied to TB as well;
http://electric-c...utTB.pdf
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
@cd
"models we know to be wrong from experimentation" that Alfven ridiculed astrophysicists for using. You know the models created by theoreticians who "have never seen a plasma in a laboratory" and which sadly the plasma just "doesn't understand how elegant the theories are and absolutely refuses to follow them..."

so using MHD models is wrong?
The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.

also... modern physics has improved since 1970

I cannot talk FOR Mr. Thompson, but from what I learned:
solar physics INCLUDES: physics, astrophysics, and computer science, including fluid dynamics, plasma physics including magnetohydrodynamics, seismology, particle physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics, stellar evolution, space physics, spectroscopy, radiative transfer, applied optics, signal processing, computer vision, computational physics, stellar physics, helioseismology and solar astronomy.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Jan 30, 2014
so using MHD models is wrong?

The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.

Yes, he was very direct in regards to it's limitations. Yet those warnings based upon laboratory and in situ observations are largely ignored. Astrophysicists will pay lip service and "acknowledge" they understand MHD is an approximation, problem is the approximation is drastically flawed. He addressed these issues along with other misinterpretations (reconnection, frozen-in lines, etc..) repeatedly, still these metaphysical phenomena are intimately intertwined with the edifice of astrophysics.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014
Being that the conditions of the corona was a complete surprise, any explanations you come up with are a posteriori and ad hoc. A contrary to your hubris, some still think that coronal heating is still a mystery and has not been "solved" as you falsely claim.
Just more handwaving. And "poorly understood" as alluded to in the article you've posted is not the same as "a mystery". The causes of coronal heating is beginning to be understood, and there is a lot of study being done about it. That is the nature of science - it evolves. That is the problem with the EU crowd - most of the "mysteries" they hang their collective hats on were mysteries in the 70's and have been solved.
And speaking of hubris, you are one to talk. I see you haven't addressed my questions, and I see that Mr. Scott hasn't come to defend the electric sun hypothesis. Surely he is not going to let someone as obviously incapable as you defend his pseudo-scientific "theory"?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Jan 30, 2014
I see you haven't addressed my questions, and I see that Mr. Scott hasn't come to defend the electric sun hypothesis. Surely he is not going to let someone as obviously incapable as you defend his pseudo-scientific "theory"?

I have a feeling Dr. Scott is preparing for this upcoming conference;
http://www.thunde...peakers/
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2014
Really, please explain that "necessary consequence" of the heat sink.

A full explanation falls outside my 1000 character limit. Briefly, the 2nd law of thermodynamics prevents heat from moving *spontaneously* from cold to hot. However, heat energy can be pumped "uphill" from cold to hot, which is exactly what a refrigerator does. The transfer of heat from the hot interior of the sun is primarily thermal so it is no surprise that the temperature goes down from core to photosphere. In the region of the photosphere & above there are numerous non-thermal pumping mechanisms available (magnetoacoustic waves for instance, or nanoflare shock waves). The energy density continues to fall off very rapidly, even while individual particle energy ("temperature") goes up. The high particle energy is a necessary consequence of the conservation of energy and the interaction between charged particles and the non-thermal pumps.
barakn
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2014
Yet another link from http://www.thunde...peakers/ . When will the madness end?
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2014
... contrary to your hubris, some still think that coronal heating is still a mystery and has not been "solved" as you falsely claim.
http://www.cfa.ha...su201304


I never mentioned "coronal heating" and never said the problem was solved. I said "The temperature minimum in the photosphere is a necessary consequence, required by the laws of physics, ..." I have explained what that means in my post above. Meanwhile, I point out that the webpage you linked to explains how the problem you speak of is essentially solved. Therefore, if your purpose is to embarrass me, you will need to find a more reliable source.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Jan 30, 2014
I thought we were talking about plasma, what does gas theory have to do with it?

Since when is plasma physics not a special case of the physics of gases, with the addition of electric charges and magnetic fields? Plasma physics is gas physics; it is also gravitational physics, electromagnetic physics, thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, and a lot of other stuff. You don't get to pick and choose your favorite laws of physics. They are all in play at all times and in all places. Some can be ignored when their effect can be quantitatively demonstrated to be insignificant, compared to the problem being solved. But in the case of the sun, the plasma is mostly "complex plasma", a mix charged & neutral particles (most of the photosphere is uncharged neutral hydrogen anyway), so one must bring all relevant physics to bear.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
I have a feeling Dr. Scott is preparing for this upcoming conference;
http://www.thunde...peakers/
OMG the greedy leading the blind!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 30, 2014

The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén,[1] for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970.

... He addressed these issues along with other misinterpretations (reconnection, frozen-in lines, etc..) repeatedly, still these metaphysical phenomena are intimately intertwined with the edifice of astrophysics.


In all of these cases it is well known and definitively proven that Alfven was wrong. See, for instance, "Fundamentals of Plasma Physics", Paul Bellan, University of Cambridge Press, 2006; "Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice", Priest & Forbes, University of Cambridge Press, 2000; "Reconnection of Magnetic Fields: Magnetohydrodynamics and Collisionless Theory and Observations", Birn & Priest (editors), University of Cambridge Press, 2007. Alfven's failures along these lines are well known throughout the plasma physics community.

And what does any of this have to do with "Explaining the Higgs"?
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Jan 30, 2014
@whitewalking ...
Your speculations look right to me. Most of the mass of a nucleus comes from the binding energy via the mass equivalence e=mc^2, which does not involve the Higgs boson. Any other energy in the nucleus likewise has a mass equivalence. The Higgs mechanism is only required to explain the intrinsic mass of the particle itself, the "rest mass" in terms of special relativity.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
Alfven's failures along these lines are well known throughout the plasma physics community.

Time will tell in regards to this claim. Alfven's "failures" are known by a small insular group of astrophysical "plasma" physicists. Whereas over at the IEEE plasma sciences and EE schools where they actually DO something with the physics they study (particle beams and such), his models are still in use to this day.
Funny thing is, the more data that is returned by space probes the more the data agrees with Alfven's theories. Take this recent discovery of electric double layers at the Van Allen belts;
http://prl.aps.or.../e235002
Here is an article written by someone who is confused by the presences of such structure;
http://physics.ap...s/v6/131
The confusion lies in the fact he is ignorant of the extensive research into electric discharge in gases championed by Alfven, et al. If he was "proven wrong" as you erroneously claim, these DL's should not be there
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
Alfven's "failures" are known by a small insular group of astrophysical "plasma" physicists. Whereas over at the IEEE plasma sciences and EE schools where they actually DO something with the physics they study (particle beams and such), his models are still in use to this day.

Not true. It is well known throughout the engineering & physics disciplines that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is dead wrong, that the frozen flux approximation is valid, and that both are critical in plasma physics & engineering. The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment in the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is only one of several laboratory experiments where magnetic reconnection is routinely monitored & measured.
http://mrx.pppl.gov/
http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/publications.html

In particular, see the paper "Magnetic Reconnection"; Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji; Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (2010), number 15 on the publications list.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
Take this recent discovery of electric double layers at the Van Allen belts; ...

So what? Nobody ever claimed there are no double layers in astrophysical plasmas. On the contrary, I know one colleague whose PhD thesis in astrophysics is on plasma double layers. There are numerous studies and measurements of double layers in solar system plasmas going back decades. Alfven's mistake was his rejection of magnetic reconnection (see above). We now know that both double layers & reconnection are critical processes in astrophysical plasmas. It's not just one or the other, it's both. The "electric star" and "electric universe" people routinely reject any known laws of physics and any known laboratory data that does not conform to their prejudice, which makes them pure & unadulterated pseudo-scientist.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
"Magnetic Reconnection in Toroidal Magnetic Confinement Devices" is a talk delivered by Richard Fitzpatrick for the Summer School on MHD and Kinetic Processes in Laboratory, Space, and Astrophysical Plasmas, Peking China, June 2011. Fitzpatrick is Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is Associate Director of the Institute for Fusion Studies.
http://farside.ph...king.pdf
http://w3fusion.p...edu/ifs/
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
See the paper "A Laboratory Experiment of Magnetic reconnection: Outflows, Heating and Waves in Chromospheric Jets"; Nishizuka, et al., The Astrophysical Journal 756(2): article 152, September 2012.
http://adsabs.har...56..152N

In this paper the authors recreate the magnetic fields and plasma state observed in a solar chromospheric plasma in a laboratory, and then observe the effects of magnetic reconnection. This kind of laboratory based recreation of astrophysical events is common. Contrary to what one might think, much of plasma astrophysics has a firm foundation in experimental laboratory plasma physics.
Osteta
Jan 31, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
The Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech is one of the nation's leading centers for laboratory simulation of astrophysical plasmas, especially solar flares & prominences, including laboratory simulations that include observed magnetic reconnection where the solar environment is duplicated.
http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/
http://ve4xm.calt...ma_page/inertial.htm

See the paper, "Magnetic Reconnection from a multiscale instability cascade"; Moser & Bellan; Nature 484(7385): 379-381, February 2012.
http://adsabs.har...82..379M

In this paper the authors demonstrate the importance of non-MHD, particle kinetic processes, in the transition from slow to fast magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
The discussions about Plasma Universe don't belong here.

I agree, this is supposed to be about the Higgs field & boson. But the discussion is here, nonetheless.

In addition, I believe it's all just about missunderstanding, as the gravitomagnetic field share many resemblance with electromagnetic fields, just at much larger scales. ...

Gravitomagnetism is too subtle. The gravitomagnetic effects are extremely small (near Earth it's on the order of magnitude of the gravitational acceleration divided by the speed of light squared). It's not about any misunderstanding. It's about the EU people being deliberately ignorant about plasma physics, despite claiming expertise in that discipline.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
I agree, this is supposed to be about the Higgs field & boson. But the discussion is here, nonetheless.
Yes, here and on pretty much every other article that has been on this site that mentions magnetism, gravity, sun or solar, electromagnetism, plasma, Einstein, Higgs, climate warming, physics, filaments, blazars, stars, solar wind, particles, big bang theory, and so on!

Give it a shot Tim, pull up any single article on this site that mentions any of those things. Between cantdrive and his EU, Zephyr and his aether(that's him BTW under his new handle Osteta), this Saraiva fellow and others, its a virtual smorgasbord of pseudo-scientific ramblings.

Not that I'm complaining, I have had great success showing students how the pseudo-science is portrayed. Just understand that yours is one of few voices of reason willing to take the time to dispel some of the garbage that permeates the comments section of this site.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
Nobody ever claimed there are no double layers in astrophysical plasmas.

How can you claim they are there? A good model such as those advanced by Alfven will have that predictive quality, it's been shown ad nauseum the models currently in use do not predict nor account for the effects of this ubiquitous plasma phenomena.

It is well known ... that Alfven's rejection of magnetic reconnection is dead wrong,

So I hope you understand the context of Alfven's "rejection" of magnetic reconnection, from your posts it's apparent you do not. The physical process of the exploding double layer or exploding circuit (your magnetic reconnection) was explained decades ago by Alfven, that insular group of physicists and their papers that you linked is just evidence they are unable to relate to that which has already been explained.
http://plasmafron...tic.html

Particle/circuit models must be employed, as Alfven warned.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
Yes, here and on pretty much every other article that has been on this site that mentions magnetism, gravity, sun or solar, electromagnetism, plasma, Einstein, Higgs, climate warming, physics, filaments, blazars, stars, solar wind, particles, big bang theory, and so on!


I simply added a quote (which said nothing about EU/PC), it was you who brought up misleading claims about EU and Velikovsky. Now it's being insisted I must believe these "scientists" claims of these reified lines "reconnecting". Yet when you read their "explanations" there still remains great mystery about the processes involved. On the contrary, when you understand Alfven's simple description that when those electric currents are disrupted, probably by an instability in a DL, the circuit will catastrophically collapse and the entire inductive energy within the circuit will be released explosively. Simple.

I know one colleague whose PhD thesis in astrophysics is on plasma double layers.

One huh? Wow!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
Nobody ever claimed there are no double layers in astrophysical plasmas.

How can you claim they are there? A good model such as those advanced by Alfven will have that predictive quality, it's been shown ad nauseum the models currently in use do not predict nor account for the effects of this ubiquitous plasma phenomena.

Dead wrong, no such thing has ever been demonstrated truthfully by anyone, since it is a thoroughly ridiculous thing to say. Standard plasma astrophysics has *always* included double layers, and still does, but Alfven seriously over-estimated their importance in astrophysical settings.

As for standard plasma astrophysics, here is an example: "Particle-In-Cell Simulation of a Strong Double Layer in A Nonrelativistic Plasma Flow: Electron Acceleration to Ultrarelativistic Speeds"; Dieckmann & Bret; Astrophysical Journal 694(1): 154-164, March 2009.
http://adsabs.har...94..154D
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
I know one colleague whose PhD thesis in astrophysics is on plasma double layers.

One huh? Wow!

What part of "I know one colleague" is too much for you to handle? My personal circle of colleagues & associates does not include all living PhDs. Considering that it is a narrowly specialized topic, and far from the frontier these days, it's unusual that I would personally know even one.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Jan 31, 2014
... that insular group of physicists and their papers that you linked ...

Dead wrong again. *You* are the insular group, the small iconoclastic group of EU enthusiasts who ignore plasma physics like it was the plague. No, the papers & experiments I cite & link to represent the entire broad discipline of plasma physics & plasma engineering, everywhere in the world. Magnetic reconnection is the discipline standard world wide, rejecting it is pure pseudoscience, or worse.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
One huh? Wow!

@Tim Thompson
and now you see.
Given the overwhelming evidence, Cantdrive resorts to??

the above Osteta linked a source paper that was obviously faked in another thread, but counters that given that it has data that looks familiar, it must be an ok source, even though searching the database of both links/sites that the paper refers itself as being published under gives no evidence of publication.
Therefore no peer review and reliability.

As Maggnus said, if the article is about cosmology, or contains any of his key words, the EU/Aether bunch above come out like cockroaches proclaiming validation of some or another, be it legitimate or not

Mr. Thompson - I have a Higgs question:
how valid is the speculation of other possible Higgs particles?
And Why would there be other Higgs?
what would the multiple Higgs field/particle elucidate in the standard model?
Are these questions even answerable at this point?
if you would give your view, please...
thank you
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2014
how valid is the speculation of other possible Higgs particles?

Well, anybody can always speculate about anything. However, so far as I know, the standard model of particle physics works just fine with one Higgs field and one Higgs boson. I am unaware of any serious speculation that there may be more than one of either, and I suspect the standard model would have a hard time dealing with more than one.
Nestle
2 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2014
how valid is the speculation of other possible Higgs particles?
IMO we already observed them. Not quite accidentally, the SUSY theory predicts five Higgs bosons too.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2014
As for standard plasma astrophysics..: "Particle-In-Cell Simulation of a Strong Double Layer in A Nonrelativistic Plasma Flow: Electron Acceleration to Ultrarelativistic Speeds"
It rather non-standard for "standard" astrophysicists to use PIC simulations, but at least it's a start even though they decided on the simple one dimensional model. The next step is to adopt the fully 3 dimensional models developed by the electrical engineers working with nukes at Los Alamos;
http://www.plasma...cesI.pdf
http://www.plasma...esII.pdf
Magnetic reconnection is the discipline standard world wide

You're not wrong, but this wouldn't be the only precedent where the scientific community held the wrong view in spite of overwhelming evidence. Birkeland's theory of aurora was ignored in favor of Chapman's for decades, Alfven's exploding circuit/exploding DL will one day likely share the same fate over magnetic reconnection.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
It rather non-standard for "standard" astrophysicists to use PIC simulations, …

No, it's not "non-standard" at all; there were over 60 papers published using PIC simulations in just the last year alone. And they are quite skilled at 3D simulations as well, it's just that 1D is all that is needed for the paper I cited, since only 1 dimension has any significant energy in it (the line of the beam, perpendicular to the shock front).

See the paper, "Particle-in-cell simulations of shock-driven reconnection in relativistic striped winds"; Sironi & Spitkovsky; Computational Science and Discovery 5(1): article 014014 (January 2012). The paper covers 2D & 3D PIC simulations of magnetic reconnection at the termination shock of a relativistic wind.
http://adsabs.har....5a4014S

You keep making claims about what standard astrophysics does not do, and then you are proven wrong. Why not just admit that you simply don't know.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2014
Birkeland's theory of aurora was ignored in favor of Chapman's for decades, Alfven's exploding circuit/exploding DL will one day likely share the same fate over magnetic reconnection.

There is no chance at all that this will ever happen. The problem with Birkeland's theory was that the current system he proposed could not be observed until 1967. Observational & experimental confirmation are critical. We can very easily, by direct observation, tell the difference between double layers and the reconnection of magnetic fields in a laboratory plasma or in a space plasma that is accessible to direct spacecraft measurements. We know for a fact that it is magnetic reconnection and nothing to do with double layers. I have already given links for the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at Princeton and the Bellan group at Caltech where these measurements are made in real laboratory plasma. We KNOW that it is reconnection, not double layers. We can see it for a fact.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2014
You keep making claims about what standard astrophysics does not do, and then you are proven wrong. Why not just admit that you simply don't know.
For the same reasons you feel compelled to "believe" that these issues have been resolved beyond any shadow of a doubt. Regardless of the PIC models (which is a start), if the physics of those models is incorrect so too must be the claims based upon them. No "proof" has been shown, just your list of papers you and your colleagues choose to accept.
We know for a fact that it is magnetic reconnection and nothing to do with double layers.
We "know for a fact" that we are witnessing a violation of Maxwell's laws? No where was it claimed that it MUST be an exploding DL, an interruption of the circuit due to many reasons (instabilities, adjacent currents, etc...) is also an assumed cause. The presence of particle acceleration is just one example where DL's must be involved.
Fields don't "reconnect", electric currents/circuits do.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
We "know for a fact" that we are witnessing a violation of Maxwell's laws? ... Fields don't "reconnect", electric currents/circuits do.

Nonsense. Magnetic reconnection in no way violates Maxwell's equations. Rather, they are a *necessary consequence* of the validity of Maxwell's equations. I have provided you already with the references to text books on magnetic reconnection that explain this in detail. Go and read them and see for yourself.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2014
Magnetic reconnection in no way violates Maxwell's equations.

Really? What you are suggesting is these "field lines" break then the loose ends of those lines reconnect. This is contrary to this statement; "Such fields are solenoidal: that is, they never begin or end,"
found here;
http://farside.ph...e35.html

To have "loose ends" violates Maxwell's 2nd equation, I guess for you that's a *necessary consequence".
As that same page states, "all steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description."
What is "reconnecting" is the "circulating electric current" which creates those fields.

Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
Magnetic reconnection in no way violates Maxwell's equations.
… To have "loose ends" violates Maxwell's 2nd equation, …
No it does not, and the explanation on the webpage you provided is typical but inaccurate statement. If you consider for a moment a simple null point where magnetic field lines cross, you can easily see that the number of inbound field lines is exactly equal to the number of outbound field lines. As a consequence, Gauss' Law (what you call Maxwell's 2nd equation) is always valid for any finite volume around the null point. Any reconnection pattern that satisfies the Gauss criterion does not violate any of Maxwell's equations, and that is in fact true for all magnetic reconnection configurations, since in fact there is never a "loose end" to reconnect. You will find this all explained in the Priest & Forbes book. I can give you references, but I can't make you consult them.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2014
To have "loose ends" violates Maxwell's 2nd equation, I guess for you that's a *necessary consequence".
As I have already pointed out, there are no "loose ends". The fact that there are no loose ends, and that Maxwell's equations are not violated, was proven for null points (as I described above) by J.W. Dungey in 1953: "Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems"; Philosophical Magazine 44(354): 725-738 (1953) ( http://www.tandfo...Qs3ddWPR ). The paper is copyrighted and you have to buy it from Taylor & Francis Group. Or just look in Priest & Forbes. Reconnection becomes a necessary consequence when you combine Maxwell's equations with the equation for hydrodynamic continuity.
Osteta
Feb 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
Dr. Scott explains your null point claims here;
http://electric-c...nder.pdf

Your rebuttal to Scott's rejoinder fails to address most the points he made...
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
I said that magnetic reconnection is a necessary consequence of Maxwell's equations. But Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic fields in a vacuum. If what I said is true, then we should be able to demonstrate the reconnection of magnetic fields in the absence of any currents that might "reconnect". I already did that 2-3 years ago in another discussion elsewhere, and I invite the readers to see for themselves, and to follow the several links to the detailed posts of the extended discussion:
http://forums.ran...unt=6687

In particular, also see the website "Magnets in Motion", written by an electrical engineer from Cornell University:
http://www.coolma...tion.htm

When bar magnets transition from repulsion to attraction, the topological rearrangement of the magnetic fields is a logical requirement, a necessary consequence of Maxwell's equations in a vacuum.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Feb 03, 2014
When bar magnets transition from repulsion to attraction, the topological rearrangement of the magnetic fields is a logical requirement,


"A magnetic field line is by definition a line which is everywhere parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system changes, the shape of the magnetic field line changes but it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines." - Alfvén, op cit, p.12

Here is a paper published by IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science which discusses the "pseudo pedagogical concepts" Mr. Thompson has misinterpreted;
http://electric-c...2007.pdf
Nestle
1 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2014
it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines
Isn't it the source of displacement field? You can attribute the inductive current to such a motion in the same way, like the motion of conductor with stationary current and magnetic field - at least from formal perspective. The displacement current concept explains well some exotic constructions of antennae, for example.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 04, 2014
When bar magnets transition from repulsion to attraction, the topological rearrangement of the magnetic fields is a logical requirement,


"A magnetic field line is by definition a line which is everywhere parallel to the magnetic field. If the current system changes, the shape of the magnetic field line changes but it is meaningless to speak about a translational movement of magnetic field lines." - Alfvén, op cit, p.12

Here is a paper published by IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science which discusses the "pseudo pedagogical concepts" Mr. Thompson has misinterpreted;
http://electric-c...2007.pdf


Quote mining.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
Scott's IEEE paper is poorly written, and fundamentally flawed. First, let me point out the Scott offers no formal proof for any of his arguments. Rather, he makes general conclusions based on false assumption. One need only consult Dungey, 1953 (Scott wrongly refers to Dungey 1961, and even then fails to cite the paper) [ http://www.tandfo...PUkJdWPS ] and Parker, 1963 [ http://adsabs.har....8..177P ]. Both of these papers provide formal theoretical proof that magnetic field lines can & do reconnect. Furthermore, I have already cited the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment [ http://mrx.pppl.gov/ ], in which field lines are actually observed to reconnect in real laboratory plasma. The proofs by Dungey & Parker are ignored by Scott, and experiment trumps all theory in any case. The experimental observation of reconnection proves that Scott is wrong.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
Scott is constantly derisive & insulting to astrophysicists, but does not understand the Jargon of the trade. In the astrophysics business the phrase "open field line" with respect to solar magnetic fields does not mean the line is actually supposed to be open at one end, flapping in the cosmic breeze. It means the field line does not loop back to the source, but rather connects to another magnetic field, closing properly onto the interstellar magnetic field. That's why field lines observed to move with the solar wind are called "open lines".
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
I have only 1000 characters per post and cannot give a seminar on plasma physics, especially for someone who ignores sources & references when they are provided. I have provided reference to numerous books & papers & experiments which prove that the electric star hypothesis is untenable, and that Scott's rebuttal to me is essentially worthless. Consult them and prove in detail where they are wrong. Anyone who is not ready to do this can hardly claim to be in a serious discussion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Here is a paper published by IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science
http://electric-c...2007.pdf

@cantdrive
if I may add something

from your link
Donald E. Scott received the Bachelor's and Master's degrees... and the Ph.D. degree f... all in electrical engineering

school names deleted for their protection

electrical engineering, NOT ASTROPHYSICS

now, there is no rule stating that he cannot cross-train, but the point I am making is that he is trying to apply electrical engineering to astrophysics without the background and knowledge that astrophysicists have
This is like a percussionist attempting to teach a woodwind how to play a song and telling everyone he is in the right because they are both musical instruments

just because there are correlations does not mean that the conjecture of said engineer can stand the scrutiny of astrophysics and the multiple fields required to understand it, especially given the blinders on current experimental data

this is my perspective
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 05, 2014
Scott is constantly derisive & insulting to astrophysicists,

For good reason, you constantly repeat complete nonsense such as this;
Both of these papers provide formal theoretical proof that magnetic field lines can & do reconnect.

and this;
In the astrophysics business the phrase "open field line" with respect to solar magnetic fields does not mean the line is actually supposed to be open at one end, flapping in the cosmic breeze. It means the field line does not loop back to the source, but rather connects to another magnetic field


Reifying mathematical constructs? There is no "field line" to reconnect, THEY DO NOT EXIST. Electric currents/circuits are what is reconnecting.

especially for someone who ignores sources

What about Alfven? He described exploding circuits prior to your guys.

experiment trumps all theory in any case.

You using the "standard" theory trying to claim the experimental high ground is quite laughable.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
electrical engineering, NOT ASTROPHYSICS

now, there is no rule stating that he cannot cross-train, but the point I am making is that he is trying to apply electrical engineering to astrophysics without the background and knowledge that astrophysicists have

Ignorant statement, a better understanding of history may set you straight.
http://www.plasma...1986.pdf

And before you start blathering about crackpot this blah, blah. Plasmauniverse.info is hosted by Los Alamos N.L. and most of the papers listed are peer-reviewed, many top journals are represented.
our staement about the wrong people involved is correct, it is the astrophysicists who are incapable of resolving the complex circuitry of our Plasma Universe.

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory." Alfven
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
And before you start blathering about crackpot this blah, blah. Plasmauniverse.info is hosted by Los Alamos N.L

@cantread
well, Google also hosts Zephyr's Aether theory.... does that mean that it is every bit as legitimate?
I dont care about the host server, to tell the truth
I care about content
and from what I have seen, Mr. Thompson has directly refuted everything you have thrown at him, and you have YET to read/understand anything linked, apparently
Ignorant statement

actually, I believe it to be insightful, just as jvk is a lab tech attempting to make us all believe that the scientific community is shunning his hypothesis of biological evolution when it was firmly debunked, so too is your group. They do not take into consideration any PROVEN FACTS that are against their hypothesis and therefore can be considered pseudoscience crackpots
end of story
only YOU believe
anyone else with a brain will see the truth of it
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
They do not take into consideration any PROVEN FACTS that are against their hypothesis and therefore can be considered pseudoscience crackpots
As importantly, they are experimentally and observationally stagnant. They do not consider anything new in either observations or experimentation that show beyond any reasonable doubt that their EU theory does not work in the real universe we see around us and not their made up universe. They WANT things to be so, and will not consider any evidence provided that does not conform to their desired outcome.

That, dear cantdrive, is the very ESSENCE of pseudo-science.

Your argument fails on every level. That you continue to cling to such an obviously flawed and debunked theory says much more about your mental picture of your world then it does to the actual science being done in the real world.
Nestle
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Google also hosts Zephyr's Aether theory.... does that mean that it is every bit as legitimate
Are you trying to imply, that Google isn't legitimate and serious company enough?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 05, 2014
well, Google also hosts Zephyr's Aether theory.... does that mean that it is every bit as legitimate?

Just when I thought your reasoning couldn't get any more moronic, you say something such as that. When LANL starts accepting fees for hosting websites I'll give credence to your comment, until then it's just your typical diarrhea of the mouth.

They do not take into consideration any PROVEN FACTS that are against their hypothesis

Which PROVEN FACTS do you speak of, I've asked repeatedly and have yet to see them. All that has been provided is links to papers that speak of pseudo topics such as "Magnetic Reconnection", moving field lines, frozen-in field lines, and any number of other abortions of real science. If you and Maggnutts ever pulled your head out of Timmy's ass, you may see what is otherwise obvious. We are dealing with electric discharge in plasma;
http://www.catast.../era.htm

http://www.catast...blio.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Which PROVEN FACTS do you speak of, I've asked repeatedly and have yet to see them

try re-reading all of Tim Thompson's posts, and read those links he left behind for you
that speak of pseudo topics

you are the only one posting pseudoscience
at Least Thompson's posts are from reputable sources
We are dealing with electric discharge in plasma

just go read the posts and links

this is much like your denial on the Cassinni/Saturn thread
even with your misunderstanding of terminology, as well as you blatantly ignoring the proof in front of you, you cannot accept the truth of facts in your face
that is why you resort to disparaging comments

AGAIN, RE READ THE LINKS PROVIDED
it is all the proof needed to debunk you and prove you are just pushing pseudoscience
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
Google also hosts Zephyr's Aether theory.... does that mean that it is every bit as legitimate
Are you trying to imply, that Google isn't legitimate and serious company enough?

@zephir osteta nestle whatever

absolutely not

i am stating that it hosts a multitude of things, including pseudoscience hypothesis such as Aether and Dense Aether
and that those hypothesis cannot derive any legitimacy just because they have a blog, or web-page, or whatever

EU is based upon a fallacy
electrical engineers have not taken into consideration all known factors in the astrophysics of what they are attempting to call a hypothesis

they might make great play-stations, but their EU cosmology leaves much to be desired

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 05, 2014
@CD
and as we can see now... evidence means nothing
even when you maliciously claimed that a study author did not include/understand plasma physics, and said author not only confirmed that she did, but then gave references to support that claim, you simply said she was stupid and believed nonsense because it must be everyone ELSE that is stupid,,, no, not you!

WOW
please also note that the author is an Einstein fellow at Stanford University, and you are?
(Other than a spamming Troll, that is?)

I would like to thank you though, for your public display of incompetence
it DOES make it easier to warn others... we just have to give them links to show where you have been publicly refuted and ignored the data in front of you.
Makes our life easier

I loved watching Thompson destroy all your PSEUDOSCIENCE arguments!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
He addressed these issues along with other misinterpretations (reconnection, frozen-in lines, etc..) repeatedly, …

You can't even get Alfven right, so how can you be expected to understand actual physics? Alfven did not reject the frozen-flux approximation (especially since he was the first to prove it). What he did say was the the approximation was being over-used, which was likely true in the 70s & early 80s, when he wrote. Physicists have learned much since then and know how to use the approximation correctly. I addressed the mis-quoting of Alfven elsewhere, years ago:
http://forums.ran...t8119683

I suggest you follow my discussion and the previous comments referenced (unfortunately the forum equation server no longer works and my equations don't show, but you can follow the references in any case). Consult the plasma physics books I have already referenced for its proper use in detail.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
There is no "field line" to reconnect, THEY DO NOT EXIST.

Probably true (although see this: http://soi.stanfo...v99b.gif ), but irrelevant. "Magnetic reconnection" is jargon for the mathematical process of reconfiguring field lines, the theory being derived from & based on actual observations. The real point is that the topology of the magnetic field changes, which is quite impossible to do with induction, and the field change happens before the change in current flow (confirmed by the laboratory experiments you gleefully ignore). If you were correct, we would see the currents merge first, and the field react. But we see the opposite, which is experimental confirmation that you & Scott are wrong.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
I have already demonstrated that real neutrino physics devastates Scott's arguments about solar neutrinos:
http://www.tim-th...l_1.html

On this forum I have already provided numerous references to journal papers & books providing extremely detailed descriptions of the physics for both magnetic reconnection and "frozen-flux". Anyone interested in research with integrity will consult those references and demonstrate where they are flawed, with a level of detail at least equal to that of the presentation in the source. People who ignore the references are clearly not interested in research with integrity and can be safely ignored. I have in fact consulted all of the sources I was asked to respond to and have responded in kind. But I only get 1000 characters. So references to where the full arguments can be found are certainly sufficient.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 05, 2014
it is the astrophysicists who are incapable of resolving the complex circuitry of our Plasma Universe.

The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment is run by engineers & physicists at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. While their work is obviously relevant to astrophysical plasmas, there are no astrophysicists in the group. They are all engineers & physicists.
http://mrx.pppl.gov/

The Magnets in Motion website, with numerous movies illustrating magnetic reconnection with moving magnets, is written by an *electrical engineer* from Cornell University. No astrophysicist here.
http://www.coolma...tion.htm

It's not "insular" astrophysicists, not "insular" physicists. It's the entire community of professional physicists and engineers. Magnetic Reconnection is an observed & confirmed fact of science. And the only person exploring the realm of laughable around here is you.
Osteta
Feb 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
And before you start blathering about crackpot this blah, blah. Plasmauniverse.info is hosted by Los Alamos N.L. …


So is this: "A multidisciplinary team that includes LANL researcher Hussein Aluie of the Computational Physics and Methods group and the Center for Nonlinear Studies reports an alternative explanation, involving turbulence, for the fast magnetic reconnection."
http://www.lanl.g...tion.php

And so is this: The Reconnection Scaling Experiment, another example of magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma.
http://wsx.lanl.g...ment.htm

The server for plasmauniverse.info sits at Los Alamos, but they do not institutionally endorse anything on that site, nor do they own the URL, which belongs to Anthony Peratt. The fact that it sits at Los Alamos is irrelvant.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2014
Most of Plasma Universe proponents are experimentalists, who are just lazy to work with hard numbers for to make sure, whether their ideas based on vague analogies really work.

They don't really qualify as "experimentalists", or "scientists" of any kind. They are "philosophers" at best (and not very good at that either). In all the 20-plus years I have been dealing with these people they have never once actually performed any experiment, nor have they ever re-analyzed the data from any of the "mainstream" magnetic reconnection experiments to reveal the mainstream failures. All they ever do is sit around like ancient Greek philosophers and "think" about things, or go off to their own private "meetings" where they can impress each other with their "scholarly" acumen. But they never, ever, go to a meeting of the American Physical Society (for instance), because they know real scientists would crush them intellectually.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 06, 2014
The server for plasmauniverse.info sits at Los Alamos, but they do not institutionally endorse anything on that site, nor do they own the URL, which belongs to Anthony Peratt. The fact that it sits at Los Alamos is irrelvant

@Tim Thompson
Thank you for spelling that out more clearly for Cantdrive to understand. I thought I was being perfectly clear, but upon re-reading the post, I see that I should have explained further as I took it for granted that people here would understand how the internet works, etc. I should have also pointed out that there are NO endorsements from Los Alamos as well. Bad choice, I know. My apologies.
You should see CD's latest speculations about plasma shaping of asteroids and the grand canyon! LOL

You know... perhaps it would be a GOOD IDEA for the APS physicists to invite some of these pseudoscience crackpots to debate publicly! with lots of media attention! get the word out more effectively...at least for a while, that is...
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2014
Great explanation for the Higgs Boson ...
http://www.phdcom...p?f=1684