Missing Mass Discovered

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Thought you'd like that bit …

They completely refuse to accept near-to infinite conductivity plasma, and frozen-in magnetic fields. (For secret, undisclosed reasons).

But take a look at the temperatures/densities these guys have measured ! If ever there was empirical data supporting primordial, intergalactic frozen-in magnetic fields, I would have thought this was it !?

I'll bet they'll see this article, and spin it in the 'usual' directions, though.

Cheers

They'll have to go and consult Rocky and Bullwinkle (Peratt and Lerner) for their arcane deliberations on the matter

"Oh great and all-knowing squirrel....wise and learned moose...."

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by higginsdj

True, but what constitutes Dark Matter in 'theory' is just a hypothisis - so at the very basic level, anything that we previously could not detect but now can detect could in fact be what was previously known as dark matter!

If you wanted to take a very broad definition of what constitutes "dark matter", then you would loosely be correct. But if you took dark matter to be what most physicists and astronomers commonly think of it as being (particles of matter that can't be detected by normals means and only interact with the rest of the universe by their gravitational influence) then you would be incorrect.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

They'll have to go and consult Rocky and Bullwinkle (Peratt and Lerner) for their arcane deliberations on the matter

"Oh great and all-knowing squirrel....wise and learned moose...."

Actually .. I might have to have more of a think about this. The temperature they've measured this stuff at, is pretty high. Its very low in density, spread out over huge volumes.

I think high conductivity plasmas are expected to be low in temperature and low in density.

I would think it might be difficult to describe the behaviours of these plasmas, as I would think there might not be much info at hand about them.

Hmm …

Need more input !

Cheers

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The percentages of baryonic to dark matter to dark energy are pretty fluid. It depends on who you talk to, but the accepted figures are fairly much in line with the theory. If more or less of any of the constituents are accounted for or discounted by theory and observation, they'll just change the figures.

Thats like me saying I have $500.00 in the bank but if there is $520.00 I will just change the number
The voids they have been talking about for ages are begining to find are not so empty.
Also thy are finding more and more Dwarf galaxies and other stufflike planets not related to stars ect.
cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by astroron

Thats like me saying I have $500.00 in the bank but if there is $520.00 I will just change the number
The voids they have been talking about for ages are begining to find are not so empty.
Also thy are finding more and more Dwarf galaxies and other stufflike planets not related to stars ect.
cheers

Yes, but the numbers are fluid. They'll change as they finesse the quantities of the matter/energy that they find. However, even if they found 10 times more baryonic matter than they know of now, it's still not going to change the percentages much. It would still be an order of magnitude too small to account for what they observe is going on. It wouldn't matter how many dwarf galaxies and such they found, there's just not enough of them to make a significant dent in the percentages. If there were that many, they would've detected them by now. And, if there were that much baryonic matter around, it would completely change the geometry of spacetime and affect everything within it.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by astroron

As the detection methods improve I think they will find more and more Baryonic matter.
Carl do you think they are to rigid in their percentages of different matter as New Baryonic matter is being discovered quite ofton now
Cheers

I always thought that and My astronomy teacher think it is all non-baryonic which is why I on just passed in that essay. overall still doing well.

There is most probably a lot more baryonic matter out there just the equipment is not sensitive enough above the noise floor.

[astroron (Ron)]

OK Carl Thanks
Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Thought you'd like that bit …

They completely refuse to accept near-to infinite conductivity plasma, and frozen-in magnetic fields. (For secret, undisclosed reasons).

But take a look at the temperatures/densities these guys have measured ! If ever there was empirical data supporting primordial, intergalactic frozen-in magnetic fields, I would have thought this was it !?

I'll bet they'll see this article, and spin it in the 'usual' directions, though.

Cheers

Craig I think you know the answer.

These mental giants are against it because it leads to the topic of magnetic reconnection which is used to explain a variety of "mainstream ideas" from the high solar corona temperatures to auroras. Since mainstream uses it it must clearly be wrong.

What makes it even more laughable is that magnetic reconnection is a subject of plasma physics which these guys supposedly embrace.
To get around this apparent contradiction they claim that magnetic reconnection was supposedly cooked up by mathematicians in collusion with cosmologists.:rof l:

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

As I wrote earlier, Steven, they'll consult their ubermenschen masters Rocky and Bullwinkle for sage advice

[avandonk]

Had a quick read of the original paper. I think I understood.

They are quoting about 10^-4 to 10^-6 e per cm^3. The temperature ~10^7 K just reflects the very high velocities of the particles making up the the plasma stream. The x-rays produced by Bremsstrahlung is what they are detecting. I would imagine something like the magnetic heating of the Sun's corona is involved only over vast distances.

Rather than guessing what is between galaxy clusters they have produced real measurements. Hindsight always reveals an answer that was under your nose all the time. It is the skill in knowing where to look and what for.

Good stuff from some so young.

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Yes, but the numbers are fluid. They'll change as they finesse the quantities of the matter/energy that they find. However, even if they found 10 times more baryonic matter than they know of now, it's still not going to change the percentages much. It would still be an order of magnitude too small to account for what they observe is going on. It wouldn't matter how many dwarf galaxies and such they found, there's just not enough of them to make a significant dent in the percentages. If there were that many, they would've detected them by now. And, if there were that much baryonic matter around, it would completely change the geometry of spacetime and affect everything within it.

The proportions of baryonic:dark matter are provided by the acoustic oscillations in the CMBR aren't they ?

So, even if more baryonic matter is discovered, the proportions would still be what is shown in the CMBR power density spectrum (?)

Interestingly, if there are more dwarf and spiral galaxies discovered, then there would also be more dark matter required for them to 'do their things'.

So, adding more baryonic matter invariably results in the same ratio of DM to baryonic but just more matter (?). The volume of the universe is so big, the density wouldn't change much either .. so once again, additional baryonic wouldn't impact much.

There are lots of different data sets which lead to the need for dark matter, also. Each of these impose their own constraints on the proportions don't they ? (Just like the CMBR).

Cheers

[CraigS]

Yes, Bert …

I think I might have been originally a bit off track with my interpretation of this plasma. Its moving quickly as you point out, but the density is very low!

Steven;
I don't know whether this could be interpreted as having near-to-infinite conductance. (Hence my frozen magnetic field comment may be off track??) .. (Happy to be corrected).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The proportions of baryonic:dark matter are provided by the acoustic oscillations in the CMBR aren't they ?

So, even if more baryonic matter is discovered, the proportions would still be what is shown in the CMBR power density spectrum (?)

Interestingly, if there are more dwarf and spiral galaxies discovered, then there would also be more dark matter required for them to 'do their things'.

So, adding more baryonic matter invariably results in the same ratio of DM to baryonic but just more matter (?). The volume of the universe is so big, the density wouldn't change much either .. so once again, additional baryonic wouldn't impact much.

There are lots of different data sets which lead to the need for dark matter, also. Each of these impose their own constraints on the proportions don't they ? (Just like the CMBR).

Cheers

Pretty much so. If the baryonic matter did increase substantially enough to show up a marked change in the ratio of DM to OM, we would be getting a different PDS to what's been observed. However, you'd have to add that much baryonic matter you'd be able to walk from here to M31, hopping from planet to planet without striking any vacuum!!!! The funny thing is this...as you mentioned, the more baryonic matter (OM) that is present, the more DM is present to allow the OM to "do it's own thing", so to speak. Interestingly, it's the dwarf galaxies which appear to have higher ratios of DM to OM in their makeup. Considerably more so than in most spiral galaxies. So, if you had an overabundance of dwarf galaxies present in the universe, you're ratio of DM to OM would appear to actually increase. In other words, we may be able to use the ratio of DM to OM and the PDS results to predict how much of the baryonic matter is in the form of dwarf galaxies. That would, therefore, put an upper limit to the ratio of DM to OM, in total, and give some constraint to the theory.

[CraigS]

Yep Carl;

As you mentioned before, there's other qualitative constraints as well eg: the large scale structure.

They're also constrained indirectly by the Supernova data, I think.
.. and lensing as well.

They could also play with the different classes of DM to adjust the whole mix, but these would also be constrained by the same measurement data.

This is why they need more info to pin a few of these things down, eh ?
(Like the AMS, Ice Cube, etc).

We might complain bout the non-intuitiveness of it all, but without more data, it'll always seem weird.

That the CMBR and the Standard Model fit so well and produce the same ratios, is totally amazing !

Which is why, I guess we just have to accept it !

Cheers

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Steven;
I don't know whether this could be interpreted as having near-to-infinite conductance. (Hence my frozen magnetic field comment may be off track??) .. (Happy to be corrected).

Cheers

Craig,

As discussed via PM, if a plasma has infinite conductance then E=0.
A plasma can move parallel to the magnetic field lines. In other words the magnetic lines are frozen in the plasma.

The plasma becomes segmented, each segment constrained to a particular magnetic field line. If the field lines are in opposite directions, a current layer can form between the field lines. This increases the resistance of the plasma between the field lines. This has the effect of "unfreezing" the field lines. The magnetic field lines cross over, the plasma segments mix and your get magnetic reconnection and kinetic energy in the process.
The kinetic energy is directed perpendicular to the converging field lines much like squeezing toothpaste out of the tube cut at both ends.

As you are aware our EU friends seem to think plasma physicists are so dumb that it the requires the wisdom of an electrical engineer to tell them that magnetic reconnection is nothing more than inductance at work.

Yet those dumb plasma physicists have demonstrated magnetic reconnection in the laboratory.

http://mrx.pppl.gov/

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yep Carl;

As you mentioned before, there's other qualitative constraints as well eg: the large scale structure.

They're also constrained indirectly by the Supernova data, I think.
.. and lensing as well.

They could also play with the different classes of DM to adjust the whole mix, but these would also be constrained by the same measurement data.

This is why they need more info to pin a few of these things down, eh ?
(Like the AMS, Ice Cube, etc).

We might complain bout the non-intuitiveness of it all, but without more data, it'll always seem weird.

That the CMBR and the Standard Model fit so well and produce the same ratios, is totally amazing !

Which is why, I guess we just have to accept it !

Cheers

For now...who knows what the scientists in 100, 500 or 1000 years time will say about it. Considerably more, I should think.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

As I wrote earlier, Steven, they'll consult their ubermenschen masters Rocky and Bullwinkle for sage advice

Here is some shocking news for you Carl.

Rocky and Bullwinkle do not want to have anything to do with this crowd.

From their website http://plasmauniverse.info/ is this.

The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.

Hilarious.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

They may deny any connection, but they'll still absorb all the "electrical energy" coming from their adoring fans...when it doesn't appear to conflict with their own agenda

In any case, you couldn't call some of the journal papers I've read coming from this mob as being science. Some of them may have a thin veneer of acceptability to them, but others are down and out bizarre.

Not only that, how do you publish anything critical in the relevant journals of the IEEE, or even have any objective review process with submissions, when the senior editor for that particular section of the IEEE is the one person who is pushing this wheelbarrow...Anthony Peratt.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Craig,

As discussed via PM, if a plasma has infinite conductance then E=0.
A plasma can move parallel to the magnetic field lines. In other words the magnetic lines are frozen in the plasma.

The plasma becomes segmented, each segment constrained to a particular magnetic field line. If the field lines are in opposite directions, a current layer can form between the field lines. This increases the resistance of the plasma between the field lines. This has the effect of "unfreezing" the field lines. The magnetic field lines cross over, the plasma segments mix and your get magnetic reconnection and kinetic energy in the process.
The kinetic energy is directed perpendicular to the converging field lines much like squeezing toothpaste out of the tube cut at both ends.

As you are aware our EU friends seem to think plasma physicists are so dumb that it the requires the wisdom of an electrical engineer to tell them that magnetic reconnection is nothing more than inductance at work.

Yet those dumb plasma physicists have demonstrated magnetic reconnection in the laboratory.

http://mrx.pppl.gov/

Regards

Steven

Thanks for this, Steven.
Very interesting video actually.
They talk about 'anomalous resistivity' … you mention a plasma current layer forming between field lines which produces resistivity. (I can easily visualise what you say is happening).

The whole process is once again, very probably a chaotic one, as the initial conditions would be delicately poised and any perturbations could easily (probably) completely alter the outcome and the observed effect.

I guess the ultimate aim of these guys is to 'control' it, so they can contain the plasma for fusion. In the Sun's corona, I would think pure Chaos would reign.

In the video, when 'Russell Kulsrud' starts drawing it all up on his blackboard, I find it fascinating that he starts by drawing up 'interstellar matter forming in a uniform magnetic field' … that's the crux of the issues with EU .. right there. I have more to say about this .. (I'll leave it to a separate post), but suffice it to say that clearly magnetic reconnection is real enough for these guys to have been granted funding to research it.

I fail to understand why this wouldn't occur. You can almost visually see it happening, when you look a how a flare develops on the Sun.

The EU view on this, I think, is purely motivated by outdated Arpian views, exacerbated by the seeming paucity of research done on all this, since. (Probably because of the difficulty in reaching the temperatures and doing lab measurements ??) ..

This reconnection issue, to me, is an interesting aside to the main issues highlighted by this recent analysis work however. I'm eager to discuss these issues in my next post.

Thanks kindly for the run-down on reconnection, though !
Heaps more to learn up on about this stuff !.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Arpian...yes, but I think you mean Hannes Alfven, Craig. He's the guy that the EU seem to think is God...everyone else is wrong according to them.