Fusion, and friction, and fields! Oh, my! The rich and ubiquitous world of fluid dynamics

Feb 26, 2014 by Stuart Mason Dambrot feature
Conversion of writhe to internal twist; during this deformation, Wr decreases continuously from 1 to 0, and Ƭ + N increases continuously from 0 to 1; the central curve passes at some instant through an inflexional configuration, and at this instant Ƭ decreases by unity and N increases from 0 to 1. Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1400277111. (Source: Moffatt HK, Ricca RL (1992) Helicity and the Calugareanu invariant. Proc R Soc Lond A 439:411-429. doi:10.1098/rspa.1992.0159)

Fluid dynamics – a subset of the area of physics known as fluid mechanics – is concerned with the motion, or flow, of liquids and gases. Within fluid dynamics, a vortex is a region within a fluid where the flow is essentially a spinning motion about an imaginary straight or curved axis. In this context, helicity represents the degree of linkage of the flow's vortex lines, conserved when these are frozen in the fluid.

Fluid dynamics has wide utility, with applications as diverse as human physiology (physiological fluid dynamics), the flight of insects, birds and aircraft (aerodynamics), the recovery of oil through porous media, the dynamics of ocean and atmosphere (geophysical fluid dynamics), the design of future fusion reactors (plasma dynamics and magnetohydrodynamics), and the understanding of astrophysical processes in stars and galaxies (astrophysical fluid dynamics). Recently, Prof. H. Keith Moffatt – an applied mathematician at the University of Cambridge, UK, with decades of seminal contributions in the field of fluid dynamics – published a paper reviewing several properties of helicity, including cosmological magnetic fields, topological flows, turbulence energy cascades, fusion reactor magnetic field configuration.

Prof. Moffatt discussed the paper he published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with Phys.org, beginning with the main challenges to determining the role of helicity in the areas he reviewed. "Helicity in a turbulent flow of a conducting fluid usually arises from a combination of convection and Coriolis effects," Moffatt tells Phys.org. (In physics, the Coriolis effect is a deflection of moving objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame. "These processes, acting in conjunction, can break the so-called reflectional symmetry of turbulence statistics – and helicity is a measure of the resulting lack of reflectional symmetry. Moreover," he continues, "it's now firmly established that under these circumstances, a magnetic field will grow spontaneously on a scale that can be much larger than the scale of the underlying turbulence – an example of what is referred to as order out of chaos." The magnetic fields of stars and planets are generated ordinarily by this process, as are the time-dependent evolution of these fields – for example, random reversals of the Earth's magnetic polarity. "This dynamo excitation of magnetic fields in cosmic systems," Moffatt adds, "continues to pose major challenges for theoreticians."

Another challenge, he points out, is determining the role of helicity in so-called Euler flows of arbitrarily complex streamline topology. "There's an exact analogy between steady Euler flows of an ideal incompressible fluid and magnetostatic equilibria in a perfectly conducting medium." (In fluid dynamics, the Euler equations govern inviscid, or zero viscosity, flow – and assuming an ideal incompressible flow simplifies the resulting flow equations.) "The latter may be determined by a relaxation procedure dependent on the invariance of magnetic helicity, and are stable within the limits of the perfect conductivity assumption. The analogy can then be exploited to demonstrate the existence of Euler flows of arbitrary topological complexity. Unfortunately the analogy does not extend to stability considerations, and such flows are in fact almost invariably unstable due to the presence within them of vortex sheets which are subject to the classical Kelvin-Helmholtz instability."

Relaxation of the trefoil knot to a tight minimum-energy state; two representations of the knot are shown (T2;3 and T3;2) indicating the existence of two distinct minimum-energy states. Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1400277111. (Source: Moffatt HK (1990) The energy spectrum of knots and links. Nature 347: 367-369)

Another issue is the determination of stable knotted minimum-energy magnetostatic structures. (Knots and links play a fundamental role in a wide range of fields, including quantum and classical plasmas and fluids. In fluids, the fundamental knottedness-carrying excitations occur in the form of linked and knotted vortex loops.) "Stable knotted minimum energy structures can in principle be determined by the above relaxation procedure," Moffatt says. "These are knotted magnetic flux tubes, within which the field lines may be twisted into helical form, this contributing to the overall helicity of the structure. The challenge here is to determine the minimum magnetic energy function m(h) for any given knot K, and to thereby establish a bridge with the purely geometric theory of so-called tight knots."

A critical aspect of fluid dynamics is turbulence and, in relation to helicity, what's known as depleting nonlinearity in the Navier-Stokes equations that describe the motion of fluid substances.) More specifically, the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations arises from transport of the vorticity, or spin vector, of the fluid by the associated velocity field. This nonlinearity is minimized in any region where vorticity and velocity are parallel – which happens to be precisely those regions where helicity magnitude is maximized. "It's therefore reasonable," Moffatt notes, "to conjecture that helicity has a significant influence on the nonlinearity that is responsible for the transfer of energy from large to ever-smaller scales at which viscosity, however weak, ultimately can dissipate the turbulent energy."

When it came to addressing these challenges, Moffatt's first insight was recognizing that helicity is a measure of the degree of knottedness and/or linkage of the vortex lines of the flow. "This established a bridge between classical and topology," he explains. "This insight, coupled with the technique of magnetic relaxation, led to the idea that one could unambiguously associate an energy spectrum with any knotted or linked structure. In the context of dynamo theory, recognition of helicity as a key property of turbulence provided a firm foundation for kinematic theory, and opened the door to a more ambitious fully dynamic theory of dynamo action, with saturation of the exponential growth provided by suppression of helicity by the growing ." Kinematics – often referred to as the geometry of motion – is the branch of classical mechanics which describes the motion of points, objects and groups of objects without considering the causes of that motion.

In his paper, Moffatt describes how slow viscous flows have relevance for a number of applications, one being the design of micro- and nanofluid devices. "Micro-fluid devices operate at very low Reynolds numbers due to the very small scales involved," he explains. (The Reynolds number is a dimensionless quantity used to help predict similar flow patterns in different fluid flows.) "The properties of fluid flow in such devices need to be understood in the interests of design optimization. My theory of flow near any sharp corner, now 50 years old," he notes, "is relevant for such devices, which frequently involve 2- or 3-dimensional flows in corner regions."

Slow viscous flows also increase the understanding of mixing processes in chemical engineering geophysics. "Mixing of fluids is at the heart of chemical engineering processes, in which the promotion of chemical interaction may be desirable," Moffatt tells Phys.org. "For this purpose the contact area of two fluids – assumed to be immiscible, or unable to be mixed or blended – needs to be maximized." Vigorous stirring mechanisms achieve this result, says Moffatt, frequently through the break-up of one of the fluids into small droplets – and at a microscopic level, this involves topological changes that occur despite the opposing effect of surface tension, which tends to reduce the contact area. "My focus," he adds, "has been on the mechanism of such topological change, which occurs at singular points or curves within the flow."

Idealized structure of turbulent flow: coherent structures, each of near-maximal helicity, are separated by vortex sheets which are each subject to Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Copyright © PNAS, doi:10.1073/pnas.1400277111. (Source: Moffatt HK (1985), Magnetostatic equilibria and analogous Euler flows of arbitrarily complex topology. 1. Fundamentals. J Fluid Mech 159: 359378m doi:10.1017/S0022112085003251)

At an atmospheric or oceanic scale, Moffatt continues, the Reynolds number is extremely large, and low Reynolds number results are less relevant. "However," he adds, "chaos in flows, which is identified through the exponential separation of particle paths, is relevant to the spread of pollutants – for example, from oil spills in the ocean or from volcanic eruptions in the atmosphere. The fact that such chaos can occur even for low Reynolds number steady flow in a closed domain is an indication of the universality of this phenomenon."

Moving forward in terms of the next steps in his research, Moffatt say, "It's hard to predict the future! At present I'm working on a revision of my 1978 monograph on dynamo theory, and am also collaborating with colleagues on a study of topological transitions that can occur for a soap film on a deforming wire frame." The latter, he notes, is a topic related "in spirit" to other situations, such as vortex reconnection, where topological transitions occur.

As might be expected, a range of other applications and areas of research stand to benefit from Moffatt's study. "Fluid mechanics is relevant to natural phenomena on all scales," Moffatt tells Phys.org, "from the scale of the human cell up to the scale of distant galaxies. In particular," he concludes, "my low Reynolds number studies are relevant to the smallest scales, while my studies in magnetohydrodynamics and dynamo theory are relevant in planetary and astrophysical contexts, as well as to thermonuclear fusion devices." The latter includes, Moffatt adds, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), the latest generation and largest Tokomak fusion reactor, under construction in Cadarache, France.

Explore further: Improving methods used to analyze and model fluid dynamics

More information: Helicity and singular structures in fluid dynamics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print on February 11, 2014, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1400277111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

First-time measurements will advance turbulence models

Feb 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —In research featured on the cover of Journal of Fluid Mechanics, an interdisciplinary Los Alamos team took a series of first-time measurements of turbulent mixing, providing new insights for tu ...

Recommended for you

A transistor-like amplifier for single photons

9 hours ago

Data transmission over long distances usually utilizes optical techniques via glass fibres – this ensures high speed transmission combined with low power dissipation of the signal. For quite some years ...

User comments : 51

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 26, 2014
Phi
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
It's good to understand, that the intrinsic state of vacuum in AWT is not fluid or any other phase of matter, as we know it. The vacuum at common scales behaves rarther like the nested elastic foam. The fluid behavior arises only at the sufficiently large distance scales, when the foam becomes so deformable, it doesn't prohibit a free flow (dark flow). This explains, why the equations describing the fluid and the vacuum at different scales are http://i.imgur.com/tx2Zi8h.gif. Analogously at the small scales the fluidity of vacuum becomes apparent, when the bubbles of vacuum become so tiny, that the foam as a whole gets a fluous character similar to fine bubbles at the bottom of glass of beer. When the vacuum behaves like the fluid, it's opened to formation of new generation of density fluctuations in it, i.e. new generation of quantum foam and whole this geometry repeats in nested way.


Zeph, if ya took some advanced calculus ya would a dangerous man. Scary ya would be I say.
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
Re: "Fluid dynamics has wide utility, with applications as diverse as … the understanding of astrophysical processes in stars and galaxies (astrophysical fluid dynamics)."

Of course, this remains a controversial point, due to a number of reasons which students who are considering going into astrophysics should pay careful attention to -- since the following list will NOT be taught in your classes:

(1) The application of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) to collision-less plasmas has been a controversial practice from its inception, and critics remain to this day for a handful of reasons. For further information, see "Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" or "Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas", both by Parks. Perhaps the most controversial practice associated with the application of MHD equations to astrophysical phenomenon is that idealized MHD approximation treats plasmas as having infinite conductivity, which we know from lab observations to be false.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
Of course, this remains a controversial point, due to a number of reasons which students who are considering going into astrophysics should pay careful attention to -- since the following list will NOT be taught in your classes:

(1) The application of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) to collision-less plasmas has been a controversial practice from its inception, and critics remain to this day for a handful of reasons. For further information, see "Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" or "Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas", both by Parks. Perhaps the most controversial practice associated with the application of MHD equations to astrophysical phenomenon is that idealized MHD approximation treats plasmas as having infinite conductivity, which we know from lab observations to be false.


Still taking out your frustration at failing on the general public I see. Have ya ever considered directing your ire at those who rejected ya? It's not our fault.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
(2) Quasi-neutral plasmas are nevertheless CONDUCTIVE. Conductivity has to do with the freedom of the charge carriers in a medium and the ease with which an electric current can flow through it. See http://www.thunde...tral.htm for more information.

(3) The ideal fluid concept was originally conceptualized by Alfven in 1953 to study how MHD waves would behave if conductivity were imagined to be infinite. "In such an ideal limit, magnetic fields would become frozen in the fluid. However, the frozen-in-field concept requires the strict criterion E*B = 0 which is not always satisfied in space" (Parks). Alfven was awarded the Nobel prize for his creation of MHD, but what is not generally taught to astrophysics students is that he used the opportunity of his 1970 speech to chastise their application of these equations. See Hannes Alfven's 1970 Nobel lecture for more information.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
(4) The interstellar matter is NOT cloud-like. Observations of neutral HI hydrogen suggest that it is frequently highly filamentary -- much like the filaments observed within novelty plasma globes. This very directly suggests a reason to suspect that the HI hydrogen is filamentary due to the transfer of charged particles.

(5) Furthermore, observations of the knots within these filaments exhibit an extraordinary "coincidence": the presence of critical ionization velocities which we'd expect to see if charged particles were slamming into neutral clouds of gas at very high velocities. I say "expect to see" because what is extraordinary is that all four of the CIV's that radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur has observed are associated with the universe's most common elements.

Students of physics who are contemplating going into the field of astrophysics are advised to hedge their bets on the study of MHD, to protect themselves from the possibility of future discipline drama.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2014
(2) Quasi-neutral plasmas are nevertheless CONDUCTIVE. Conductivity has to do with the freedom of the charge carriers in a medium and the ease with which an electric current can flow through it.
(3) The ideal fluid concept was originally conceptualized by Alfven in 1953 to study how MHD waves would behave if conductivity were imagined to be infinite. "In such an ideal limit, magnetic fields would become frozen in the fluid. However, the frozen-in-field concept requires the strict criterion E*B = 0 which is not always satisfied in space" (Parks).


The reason we know that ya have no agenda other than to annoy is because you never post anything but copy/paste, boilerplate, non-topical posts. A person who actually felt passionate about the subject would be able to actually discuss his position with his own words. Ya never have any of your own words. It's easy to troll if all ya do is copy/paste the same items over and over.

At least Zephyr can speak for himself.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
Students of physics who are contemplating going into the field of astrophysics are advised to hedge their bets on the study of MHD, to protect themselves from the possibility of future discipline drama.


What, so they can become what ya are? Failures? Ya failed. Ya didn't have what it takes to make the grade, ya couldn't succeed. So ya think ya will just give some payback for getting your feeling hurt?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
For a review of the origin of MHD and the implications of its application to astrophysical phenomena, see David Talbott's Edge article at http://www.scient...e_09.pdf

"But the critical turn in this story, the part almost never told within the community of astronomers and astrophysicists, is that Alfvén came to realize he had been mistaken. Ironically—and to his credit—Alfvén used the occasion of his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize to plead with scientists to ignore his earlier work. Magnetic fields, he said, are only part of the story. The electric currents that create magnetic fields must not be overlooked, and attempts to model space plasma in the absence of electric currents will set astronomy and astrophysics on a course toward crisis, he said."

Some would say that the crisis is here right now, and it's called dark matter/energy.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
Some would say that the crisis is here right now, and it's called dark matter/energy.


The crisis is yours, your failure at performing anything of merit. Is anything ya do here giving ya anymore satisfaction than your failed attempts in an academic setting?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
Q-Star, can you explain why graduate students are not taught the origin of the MHD concept, nor educated within the controversy associated with MHD? How are the scientists of tomorrow supposed to extend our scientific models without a comprehensive review of the information they need to formulate a meaningful personal worldview? Given that 99%+ of what we actually observe in space is matter within the plasma state, isn't the way in which we model this cosmic plasma a vital topic which demands critique and discourse?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2014
Q-Star, can you explain why graduate students are not taught the origin of the MHD concept, nor educated within the controversy associated with MHD? How are the scientists of tomorrow supposed to extend our scientific models without a comprehensive review of the information they need to formulate a meaningful personal worldview? Given that 99%+ of what we actually observe in space is matter within the plasma state, isn't the way in which we model this cosmic plasma a vital topic which demands critique and discourse?


Can ya explain how they seem to be making progress in our understanding of the universe? If ya can't explain that, can ya explain why ya failed in your studies and were made persona non grada in academia?
HannesAlfven
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2014
Re: "Can ya explain how they seem to be making progress in our understanding of the universe?"

But, the models now take for granted the existence of a number of constructs which have yet to be observed. This is an incredibly risky gamble which graduate students are swept into. A student who is currently thinking about going into this field of study could very likely find that, by the completion of their thesis, most of what they've learned is no longer relevant to the study of astrophysical phenomena.

The students are assessed on the basis of how good they are at "problem-solving". But, what is meant by this is how good they are at memorizing large stacks of problem sets. This is not at all like the problem-solving which happens in the real world, which involves critical thinking. Students going into these programs should be warned they will not be able to question the framework, for Jeff Schmidt suggests that this is not considered "thinking like a scientist".
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
Upon what foundation do astrophysicists stand upon when they shout down alternative approaches?

The world is looking at what has been constructed, and it looks precisely like what would be expected of a community which has fallen prey to groupthink. 95% invisible universe is not an accomplishment to be proud of, and yet the astrophysical community behaves as though it is.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
95% invisible universe is not an accomplishment to be proud of, and yet the astrophysical community behaves as though it is.


Today 5.0 % of everything in the universe is visible to us.

Only a hundred years ago only 0.000 000 000 001 % of the universe was visible.

Two hundred years ago only 0.000 000 000 000 000 001 % of the universe was visible.

Four hundred yeas ago only 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 % of the universe was visible.

Ya might think that that's not impressive or something to be proud of, but I think it is quite astonishing.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2014
Re: "Today 5.0 % of everything in the universe is visible to us."

Okay, if you could only see 5% of the road you were driving on, would you feel safe driving on it?

If you could only see 5% of the screen you're looking at right now, would you be able to use your computer?

If you could only claim to see 5% of the phenomena in any model within any discipline of science OTHER than astrophysics and cosmology, would the paper pass peer review?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2014
If you could only claim to see 5% of the phenomena in any model within any discipline of science OTHER than astrophysics and cosmology, would the paper pass peer review?


If the claim is true. Should we claim to see things we don't see? Should we just say "that's all there is"? When we know that's not true?

100 years ago we couldn't even see well enough to know there were other galaxies.

65 years ago we couldn't see radio objects.

50 years ago we couldn't see most infrared objects.

45 years ago we couldn't see x-ray or gamma ray objects.

40 years ago we couldn't see 99 % of supernovas.

35 years ago we couldn't see pulsars (neutron stars).

30 years ago we couldn't explain AGNs.

20 years ago we couldn't observe expansion.

Because we don't know everything we should just quit looking? Do you really think that everything to seen has been seen but we just don't realize it? We will never see everything there is to see (and I hope it stays that way that's why science is fun.)
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
katesisco
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
OK, lets look at edema. If the protein misfolds, then edema.
http://www.nature...14434929
Science has determined that the reason fission fails is an instability at the quantum level. Miles Maths says our system is unbalanced as to matter/antimatter. Is it possible that there is an instability in our understanding of fluid dynamics?
What do you think?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2014
OK, lets look at edema. If the protein misfolds, then edema.
http://www.nature...14434929
Science has determined that the reason fission fails is an instability at the quantum level. Miles Maths says our system is unbalanced as to matter/antimatter. Is it possible that there is an instability in our understanding of fluid dynamics?
What do you think?


Truthfully? I have no idea what to think of that.
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Feb 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
Of course, this remains a controversial point, due to a number of reasons which students who are considering going into astrophysics should pay careful attention to -- since the following list will NOT be taught in your classes

Alfven
please show empirical proof that this is the case
astrophysicists learn about plasma physics
just ask Thompson (formerly of JPL)
just ask ANY astrophysicist... I do, every time you make this claim
and I have the evidence to back up the fact that you are WRONG
shall I post it yet again?
If you could only see 5% of the screen you're looking at right now, would you be able to use your computer?

EU supporters seem to be doing ok with only 5% of their brains...

This is where EU gets tiring! YOU CONTINUALLY MAKE THE SAME CLAIM
and yet, when I back it up with evidence, you go silent
see http://phys.org/n...firstCmt for starters
cantthink also tries that same tired argument
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2014
the following list will NOT be taught in your classes

@Alfven
you are directly refuted here:

http://phys.org/n...axy.html

read these links
http://phys.org/n...vae.html
http://iopscience...1_41.pdf &
http://phys.org/n...ack.html &
http://arxiv.org/.../0512549 &
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html &
http://phys.org/n...ank.html
http://phys.org/n...end.html

Stupidity differs from ignorance in that ignorance never knew something, but YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE ERROR OF YOUR PROCLAMATIONS, therefore your conjectures here are based upon STUPIDITY

you've already been refuted time and again
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
I had best leave this here for Alfven to read as well...

@hannesalfven
want some more reasons not to trust IEEE for valid science?

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

please note
He also spotted more than 100 other "nonsense" papers unwittingly published by the New York-based Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the journal Nature reported.

just one more reason that real scientists may be leaving IEEE alone when looking for scientific data to repeat/use
Whydening Gyre
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2014
I had best leave this here for Alfven to read as well...

@hannesalfven
want some more reasons not to trust IEEE for valid science?

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

please note
He also spotted more than 100 other "nonsense" papers unwittingly published by the New York-based Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), the journal Nature reported.

just one more reason that real scientists may be leaving IEEE alone when looking for scientific data to repeat/use

And why would you trust physorg as a more reliable source than IEEE? Because the article you linked only talked about IEEE?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2014
And why would you trust physorg as a more reliable source than IEEE? Because the article you linked only talked about IEEE?

@Whydening Gyre
surely you jest?
You should know better...
when dealing with EU acolytes, I try to always do my homework...
this was published in Nature... it is only being carried by Phys.org... didnt you read the links in it?
:-)

http://www.nature...-1.14763

actually... I am wondering if the EU papers will be pulled, given their lack of substantial evidence and applicability to astrophysics
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Feb 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2014
And why would you trust physorg as a more reliable source than IEEE? Because the article you linked only talked about IEEE?

@Whydening Gyre
surely you jest?
You should know better...
when dealing with EU acolytes, I try to always do my homework...
this was published in Nature... it is only being carried by Phys.org... didnt you read the links in it?
:-)

LOL, Cap'n...;-) Just playing the Devil's Advocate,
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Feb 28, 2014
BTW this blurring is the reason of so-called CPT symmetry violation. At the dimensional scales, where the appearance of Universe changes in most pronounced way the CP symmetry violation http://i.imgur.com/R1qZhAL.gif. Therefore the physicists have build the large colliders to demonstrate it better at higher energies. Unfortunatelly, which increasing distance of mass/energy density scale even the CP symmetry violation gets blurred, so that they didn't observe anything. This indeed brings a problem for explanation of matter-antimatter asymmetry with theories based on CP symmetry violation. In brief, very distant or close/tiny or dense or subtle reality appears just boringly random and it beats all models thinkable. Fortunately, it still hides many secrets at the scales, which are close to human scale.

Einstein gave you all a clue. a+a=b, b+a=c, b+b= d, c+b=e, and so on.... it's in the RELATIONALITY of the numbers, not the numbers. Phi rules.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
If you could only claim to see 5% of the phenomena in any model within any discipline of science OTHER than astrophysics and cosmology, would the paper pass peer review?

Maybe, depends on the contents & methodology of the paper. If I look at a candle flame from a mile away with a telescope, I am seeing only about 0.00000002% of the light from that candle, and yet I can make definitive statements about the temperature & brightness of the flame, because I can make reasonable assumptions about isotropy of the candle flame. Only about 1% of the deep ocean floor has been explored, but that does not stop anybody from writing peer reviewed papers about life on the deep sea floor.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
… students are assessed on the basis of how good they are at "problem-solving". But, what is meant by this is how good they are at memorizing large stacks of problem sets. This is not at all like the problem-solving which happens in the real world, which involves critical thinking.

This tends to be true in undergraduate education in both science & engineering (though it depends a lot on the institution & faculty), but is not as big a problem as you might think, since almost all real-world applications of technology & science don't require anything but routine. However, things change fast in graduate school, and a lot of students can't handle the transition. Graduate degree holders are awash in critical thinking skills.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
can you explain why graduate students are not taught the origin of the MHD concept, nor educated within the controversy associated with MHD?

Your assumption that there is a "controversy" to teach is fabulously false. Meanwhile, graduate students certainly are taught the origin of MHD, if they are going into a field that makes use of it. But why would anyone pursuing a PhD in solid state applied physics ever see a single problem related to MHD? Grad students only have so much time available to study & graduate & get a job & make a career, and for them MHD would be a waste of time.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Perhaps the most controversial practice associated with the application of MHD equations to astrophysical phenomenon is that idealized MHD approximation treats plasmas as having infinite conductivity, which we know from lab observations to be false.

You make the false assumption that this is the extent of plasma astrophysics. Everyone knows that the ideal plasma is only an approximation, so definitive conclusions in plasma astrophysics are based on such assumptions only in so far as conditions permit. For instance, the "frozen flux" approximation is perfectly valid in all cases where the resistivity of the plasma establishes a diffusion time scale that is large compared to the time scale of the phenomenon in question. The idea that the approximation is always false is unacceptably poor thinking.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
The idea that the approximation is always false is unacceptably poor thinking.

Bravo, Tim.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
Actually the mainstream theorists are gradually forced into it, because their overcomplicated ab-initio developed models (supersymmetry, stringy and loopy theories) failed the experimental tests. And they're still required to publish something. From this moment the already deprecated if not rejected classical physics analogies suddenly http://backreacti...-it.html just before few years. Even I avoided to use these analogies in my explanations for their apparent naivety. Now the theorists are developing one phenomenological model after another and publish them, as if nothing would ever happen. They don't talk about aether, but they use this concept all the time.

The problem here is the loops... when and where to "close" them or "re-loop" them is of paramount importance.
Aether? Of course it exists. Just not of physical matter. scalable energy levels.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
But what the physical matter is? Just the http://www.newsvi...ce-time. The AWT just attributes the large gravitational lenses the same attributes, like these small ones (the inertia, surface tension, etc). We are made of space-time curvatures, which are formed with another density gradients - space-time curvatures and so on - recursively. There is nothing less or more physical about it, than about any other particle or space-time curvature.

For example, the water surface is physical, because we are observing it with much faster light waves. But if we would live on it like the waterstriders and the surface waves would be the fastest interaction, which we could use for its observation, then the same surface would become metaphysical for us immediately. The fish cannot perceive the water in which it swims all the time. So we cannot observe the vacuum from the same reason.

Not arguing at all, Bonia. Just defining it differently...
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 01, 2014
Just saying that any measured space has charge of one form or another(electrical or magnetic or gravitational, matter, et al). What makes it all work is charge differential from the next contiguous space(s). And it works by a specific ratio.
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
For further information, see "Why Space Physics Needs to Go Beyond the MHD Box" or "Importance of Electric Fields in Modeling Space Plasmas", both by Parks.


"Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD Box, George K. Parks, Space Science Reviews 113(1): 97-125, October 2004
http://adsabs.har...13...97P

"Importance of electric fields in modeling space plasmas", George K. Parks, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 69(1-2): 18-23, February 2007
http://adsabs.har...69...18P

These two papers share a common premise, namely that space plasma physics relies too much on MHD approximations, where kinetic theory is required; that the small electric fields are ignored, and that Boltzmann's equations are routinely ignored. This premise is false now, and was already false when the papers were published. Parks' plasma physics is fine, but his basic premise is false.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
I said above that the premise for the Parks papers was false. Here are two examples of papers published years before Parks' papers, which actually do what Parks says is not being done.

"Energy variations and electric fields in a collisionless plasma", A. Hruska, Astrophysics and Space Science 100: 149-158, March 1984
http://adsabs.har...00..149H

"A nonspecialist's guide to kinetic simulations of space plasmas", Winski & Omidi, Journal of Geophysical Research 101(A8): 17287-17304, August 1996
http://adsabs.har...0117287W
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
In his paper, "Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD Box" Parks points out that what is really needed is a solution to the Boltzmann equations. See the book "Space Plasma Physics: An Introduction to Plasmas and Particles in the Heliosphere and Magnetosphere", May-Britt Kallenrode, Springer 2001 (2nd edition). In this book, published 3 years before Parks' paper, the Boltzmann equations and kinetic theory are developed in some detail. This was (and still is) a standard textbook and guide for professional space plasma physicists. This is one more piece of evidence that the premise of Parks was already false before he published it.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
In his paper, "Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD Box", Parks says explicitly "our view is diametrically opposed to that of Parker (1996)". Parker asserts that the correct way to model magnetospheric physics is to use the magnetic field & velocity (B,v) rather than the electric field and current density (E,j). Parker's alternative is still not without controversy, but I have discussed this with Parker and I agree with him.

Parker's Paper:
http://adsabs.har...0110587P

My discussion of the Parker alternative:
http://forums.ran...unt=6136
http://forums.ran...unt=6138
http://forums.ran...unt=6156
Bonia
Mar 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
The plasma physics (cosmologists?) can explain the space physics only if you can be sure, you can apply the plasma physics.

Why would one expect the physics to be different?

"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

Plasma Cosmology is based off of laboratory research, in contradiction to the imaginary conjectures of AWT and the "standard" theory.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Plasma Cosmology is based off of laboratory research, in contradiction to the imaginary conjectures of AWT and the "standard" theory.

What's "AWT"? In any case, there is no contradiction, standard plasma astrophysics is very much based on the physics of plasmas as determined in the laboratory. Plasma cosmology is not; it is based on the interpretation of very limited laboratory experience from decades past and includes nothing of modern laboratory plasma physics.
smd
not rated yet Mar 02, 2014
Macroscopic waves propagating on the surface of a body of water are completely distinct from quantum wavefront propagation.It is far more than simply a matter of scale-based perception. Moreover,

"No naive realistic picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice
http://www.pnas.o...pdf+html
- reviewed in Phys.org:
http://phys.org/n...cts.html

"The fact is, in physics, theories are sets of equations, and nothing more. 'Quantum field theory' is a group of mathematical structures. 'Electrons' are little stories we tell ourselves."
http://www.edge.o...il/11260
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
What's "AWT"? In any case, there is no contradiction, standard plasma astrophysics is very much based on the physics of plasmas as determined in the laboratory.

@Tim Thompson
the AWT is Aether Wave (Theory), actually a hypothesis, as it does not contain any empirical data supporting it. It is also sometimes called Dense Aether Wave (a more modern version), etc... yes... the same aether from Einstein's day.
The Bonia/Rimino poster is known as Zephir and has been banned several times for posting about it
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
the AWT is Aether Wave (Theory), actually a hypothesis, as it does not contain any empirical data supporting it. ... yes... the same aether from Einstein's day.

Guess it depends on if your standing outside or inside the data empire, Cap'n...:-)
In the old days - were they talking bout actual particles as aether? or fields of something? Perhaps of virtual particles? Magnetic moments n reconnections, maybe?
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Another insight of AWT

@zephir
the explanation was for the benefit of Tim Thompson
it was not an invitation to spam the site with pseudoscience DAW
so

GIVEN your expert knowledge of DAW/AW philosophy &
GIVEN that you make a claim of theory status &
GIVEN that theories have empirical data, mathematical models, and can make predictions as well as describe observations

THEN please provide us with the EMPIRICAL DATA, MATHEMATICAL MODELS and the experiments so that we can read through them and make our own judgements regarding the validity of the science

then we can post rebuttals that make sense with links and there will be no need 4000+ continuous posts for "explanation"

thanks
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
but the doubters like you still ask another and another evidence

@zephir
I have asked you for a year to provide it, and you have NEVER done so, OTHER THAN LINKS to KNOWN PSEUDOSCIENCE SITES
this is where we are right now... so. IF
We have eighty years of empirical data, some sixty theories about it (many of the with math), just the lenr-canr database consists of thousands of articles with myriads of experiments

is true then PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DATA

after all, YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS
therefore the onus is upon YOU to provide extraordinary evidence

and about cold fusion: I will admit cold fusion works when they use those thousands of links to provide a working model
just because a study says it might work, doesnt mean it WILL work
and THAT is what you are referring to
also: given that you have NEVER provided proof of COLD FUSION WORKING
or studies that prove it WILL WORK or DOES WORK
then your comments are stupid!
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
You should demonstrate first, that this extensive evidence is enough for you, after then I could believe in your good will in the matter of AWT

@zeph
I will continue in the same vein as above...
you have NEVER provided PROOF of WORKING COLD FUSION GENERATING ANY ELECTRICAL POWER
as THIS would be EMPIRICAL DATA

I dont remember you providing proof of cold fusion either
in fact, the only link I ever saw here could NOT be corroborated with the author, as far as I know
there was ONE link floating around for LENR that was a study that CLAIMED to have greater output/heat measured than put in...
when I can VERIFY that it is legitimate, then I will accept it, until then it is no better than a claim of owning angel farts trapped in a ziploc baggie
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
This is just the point. I'm don't provide any studies

@Z
this is MY point as well
extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof
you've made the claims, now PROVE IT
refusal is just indicative of your inability
if YOU cant provide proof of YOUR claims, why should WE bother listening to them?
Claims w/o proof is TROLLING/SPAMMING
Your task is to find at least ten links to studies, which are demonstrating excess of heat during LENR experiment

why would I bother?
Like I said... if YOU cant prove your own statements, why would I bother trying to help you prove them?
It's actually very easy to fuck with you

IOW – you are just a TROLL
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
So, should I bother to provide some - or would it be just a waste of time? You should prove first, you don't belong into such a category of people

@Z
so- your argument is that:
since YOU cant prove your statements (which I have been asking you for since april 2013) &
because YOU cant understand the studies refuting you thus far
then it must be ME that is ignorant?
WOW!
Because I live in the US?

Only one problem: I was educated in Europe and Asia mostly (Italy, Greece, China, Germany, Japan). I only took 2.5 years in US schools 7th grade, half of junior,then senior year HS), so how does THAT factor in to this?

As for proving myself: given that you are INCAPABLE of PROVING ANYTHING, why should the onus of proof be on MY shoulders?

You are TROLLING and being STUPID
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 03, 2014
If you have no evidence for your theory, I'm not required to prove my theory. That's all.

@Z
this is where you are wrong...
I believe in legitimate science
science that has empirical data
this is generally mainstream science (as you would call it)

YOU, however, believe in a fringe philosophy that has NO EMPIRICAL DATA

YOU came to a SCIENCE SITE and made YOUR CLAIMS
therefore the onus (AS I AHVE SAID BEFORE) IS UPON YOU TO VALIDATE YOUR CLAIMS

if you CANNOT then you are nothing better than a PSEUDOSCIENCE CRACKPOT TROLL
which is the same as the EU acolytes

GIVEN that you REFUSE to back up your claims
and that you call ME ignorant because I will not arbitrarily just agree without evidence

THEN YOU HAVE PROVEN BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE A TROLL

l8er TROLL
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
just shut up and listen. If you don't like my explanation, try to show us, why it's wrong. If you have no argument, just shut up and listen again. IMO it's a fair proposal

@Z
given that you will continue to post whether I agree or disagree, then it is irrelevant what I post at this point
so, I will also make YOU an offer:
AS you have yet to provide EMPIRICAL DATA &
as I know that you are capable of looking it up yourself (or are you?) &
as the only thing I have repeatedly requested from you is EMPIRICAL DATA
THEN
I will await your posts
BUT I will request conditions:
1- as YOU are the one producing a theoretical assessment, provide maths for support/relevance
OR
2- with your multi-post claims, provide reputable links to data/studies/etc for reference so that WE know that YOU know what you are talking about

SIMPLE conditions, AND COMPLETELY FAIR

DONT JUST ramble on about waves, water striders...
GIVE SOMETHING that can be RESEARCHED
NOT OPINIONATED...
but EMPIRICAL
give&take
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Mar 03, 2014
just shut up and listen. If you don't like my explanation, try to show us, why it's wrong

@Zephir
The above is a FAIR GIVE and TAKE from us both
I will read your posts
you meet my criteria to post

I will also caution you that I will not respond immediately...
if I must make a refute about anything you post, then I will also do MY homework, and provide the best that I can, from the best sources that I can

this may take time

SO... you post
I will go from there