Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:30, 22 February 2018

	Astronomy Stub‑class Low‑importance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Misplaced Pages.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics Stub‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

ambiplasma/plasma cosmology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plasma Universe proposed merger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard plasma physics, non-standard astrophysical plasmas.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for Plasma Universe to stay active

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to close the issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes

1. Hannes Alfvén, "Cosmology in the plasma universe" (1988) Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398
2. Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies" (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778.
3. Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" (1978) Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509
4. Alfven, H.; Mendis, D. A., Plasma effects in the formation, evolution and present configuration of the Saturnian ring system (1983) Symposium on the Giant Planets and Their Satellites
5. Peratt, Anthony L. "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 639-660.
6. Wells, Daniel R.; Bourouis, Mohammad, "Quantization effects in the plasma universe" (1989) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 17, April 1989, p. 270-281.
7. Wells, Daniel R., "Was the Titius-Bode series dictated by the minimum energy states of the generic solar plasma?" (1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 73-76
8. Trubnikov, Boris A. "A new hypothesis of cosmic ray generation in plasma pinches" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 898-904.
9. Alfven, H. "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.
10. Peratt, A. L., "Electric space : evolution of the plasma universe." (1996) Astrophys. Space Sci., 244, 89-103 (1996)
11. Alfven, Hannes, Model of the plasma universe (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 629-638.

Scope of "space plasmas"

Currently space plasma and space plasmas (created by Iantresman) redirect to astrophysical plasma. Arianewiki1 objects. So what do we do with these two redirects -- re-target to plasmasphere, instead? Then what do we do with the whole of Category:Space plasmas? Thanks for your thoughts. fgnievinski (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski:Ah very good. That explains it all. Iantresman is a known follower of plasma cosmology, in which he has made many of these edits. As I've said on your Talk page here , space plasma is an older term which talks mostly on the environment near the Earth or Solar System. In plasma cosmology there is an unfounded belief that assumes as said on that page - "Alfvén proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and space plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders-of-magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe" This is proven not to be true. I.e. The magnetic fields between galaxies are not coherent for example or that interstellar clouds have weak magnetic fields.

Iantresman also under Space physics wrote "Space physics is the study of plasmas as they occur naturally in the Earth's upper atmosphere and in the universe.", which is not correct under the proper definition. (I fear this too has been done just to confuse things and it has gone unnoticed. Notably too, this page mentions no astrophysical source at all.) (Note: I've changed this immediately.)

Many fanatical plasma cosmologist supporters of these ideas have desperately tried to use various Misplaced Pages pages to promote these views, especially across non-contentious aspects of plasma and magnetic fields. (I've fought many battles over it.) The words space plasma physics has been added here to support this notion, which has gone unnoticed until your edits. The word should be placed globally just under plasma (physics) plasma physics. (Note: I've change this immediately.)

Most of the discussion / issues appears under Plasma (physics), under the section Research (bottom of page), and it clearly distinguishes between space plasma and astrophysical plasma. (In astronomy and astrophysics, the discipline space physics is globally place under solar physics).

The basic reason space physics and astrophysics are different, is that science can measure phenomenae directly by (physical) experimentation I.e. Satellites or magnetometers. Astrophysics cannot do this directly, and rely on observation and deduction. I.e. Radio telescopes or polarimetry can only detect magnetic fields indirectly.

What I'd suggest;

1) What probably needs to be done is to remove both the space plasma and space plasmas redirects.

2) Definition and explain differences between space plasma and astrophysical plasma on both the pages.

3) Space plasma and Space plasmas be merged into Space plasma.

4) Redirect Space plasma into Space physics

5) Category:Space plasmas be changed to the more global Category:Space physics

6) Category:Space physics mergers all these disciplines.

Do you think this is the best course of action?

I really do appreciate very much your expression of the problem, which is more widespread than even I thought! Cheers for that!

Note: "So what do we do with these two redirects -- re-target to plasmasphere..." We cannot do that, because the term plasmasphere is a defined part of the Earth's magnetic field. That would not be advisable. Arianewiki1 (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astrophysical plasma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050905223019/http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu:80/us-rus/ to http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/us-rus/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why plasma is stated as 'highly ionised'

@DDilworth:I have reverted your edit on Astrophysical plasma, as the removal of the word 'highly' from the text now implies something quite different. This particular debate using 'highly' has occurred several times before, and has historically has caused editing issues across multiple pages on subjects to do with plasma. Ionisation does not have to be mean that substances are in a plasma state. Its classical meaning infers that plasma state must heated to become electrically conductive, which is unlike, say, metals and solutions.

As the article on Plasma says:

"Based on the surrounding environmental temperature and density either partially ionised or fully ionised forms of plasma may be produced. Partially ionised plasma is popularly understood, for example, as bright neon signs or lightning storms, while more fully ionised plasma is associated with the interior of the Sun, the solar corona, and stars.

The positive charge in ions is achieved by stripping away electrons from atomic nuclei. The number of electrons removed is related to either the increase in temperature or the local density of other ionised matter. This also can be accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, though this fundamental process is distinctly different from chemical processes of ion interactions in liquids or the behaviour of ions existing in metals. A significant number of highly charged particles together make plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields, and this property can be usefully employed in many modern technological devices, such as, plasma televisions or plasma etching."

Astrophysical plasma is mostly found in stars, whose behaviour is much different, than say in the interstellar or intergalactic medium.

The main reference used for this is : Chu, P.K.; Lu, XinPel (2013). Low Temperature Plasma Technology: Methods and Applications. CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4665-0990-0. This is unlike your reference, which is frankly more like hearsay.

If you have further issues, please state this here... Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Arianewiki1:, Thank you for your explanation of the history of this debate, of which I was not aware. Happy to read it if you can point me to it.

I did peruse a review and a nice summary of your citation (Low Temperature Plasma Technology: Methods and Applications).

While interesting, its use of "low temperature" plasma seems fully terrestrial and dramatically myopic for use in this article, limited to manufacturing , e.g. "nanomaterials, environmental applications, the treatment of biomaterials, and plasma medicine."

The book seems to ignore Astrophysical plasma, particularly that of interstellar and intergalactic medium.

While Astrophysical plasma may seem mostly obvious in stars, I hope there is no dispute it exists in interstellar and intergalactic mediums. Those interstellar and intergalactic Astrophysical plasmas are unarguably genuinely low temperature and mostly extremely low density.

By leaving the term "highly" I believe this article on Astrophysical plasma improperly ignores and excludes interstellar and intergalactic plasmas. That is why the term "highly" needs to be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs) 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Very Strongly disagree. Not all ionised gases are necessarily in a plasma state, so your change now makes this statement now false. 'Highly' rightful infers the difference between simple field-less 'ionised gases' and 'plasma.' e.g. Atoms with one or two electrons removed (ions) is not plasma. Yet all ionised gas can still partially conduct electric current. A plasma is like a super-ionised gas – where significant number of atoms are hot (and energetic) enough where the atomic nucleus can no longer hold their bound electrons.

Also the reference and saying: "The book seems to ignore Astrophysical plasma" is because the book isn't about that topic. There is no dispute of plasma existing in the interstellar and intergalactic mediums, however, they are usually fairly weak (nT - nanotelsla/ order below microgauss) and mostly incoherent, whose present knowledge is mostly theoretical (not observed.) Plasma as a state is dependent on either temperature (electron temperature), local density, or existing magnetic or electric fields. (See Saha ionization equation)They are often termed either as partial or fully ionised plasmas, but glowing HII gas (H-alpha) isn't a plasma. (Interesting the given picture of the Lagoon Nebula is notably HII ionised gas, but he pink colour is not in a plasma state.)

Hence, I have revert your edit, unless you ou can substitute a better word. (My experience suggests differentiating between 'ionized' and 'highly ionised' is typically used. I.e. It takes significantly more energy to remove several electrons than just one electron.) Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Arianewiki1:, Thank you for your note, but as you will see from the reference below (Cambridge University Press) - it is hard to responsibly call one percent (1.0 %) ionisation, "highly ionised."

While I may agree that a few random ionized particles do not a plasma make, no matter how highly one charges a group of particles, I can not imagine anyone comfortably describing an astrophysical plasma (this article's subject) at 10 degrees Kelvin and maybe a million electrons per cubic millimeter as "highly ionized." - see Plasma Physics: An Introduction to Laboratory, Space, and Fusion Plasmas, A. Piel, 2010, Springer.

Further, Umran S. Inan et al write --

"It turns out that a very low degree of ionization is sufficient for a gas to exhibit electromagnetic properties and behave as a plasma: a gas achieves an electrical conductivity of about half its possible maximum at about 0.1% ionization and had a conductivity nearly equal to that of a full ionized gas at about 1% ionization."

Citation: Cambridge University Press, Umran S. Inan, Marek Gołkowski, Principles of Plasma Physics for Engineers and Scientists, Publ. 2011, ISBN 0521193729, 9780521193726, 284 pages (page 4)

If you wish to describe it better you might employ the idea of "mutual Coulomb interactions" (or "mutual electromagnetic interactions") - rather than "highly charged" - which is ambiguous anyway.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs) 07:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Update Feb 10, 2018: Dear @Arianewiki1:, Its been a month since I provided irrefutable evidence and citations that your "highly ionized" phrase is wrong. I gave you a month to correct that and you have failed to do so. That's not ethical or responsible.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DDilworth (talk • contribs)

@DDilworth: Firstly, please sign all your comments with the four tidles, so we can know who has placed a comment. Secondly, 'demanding' responses is unacceptable behaviour, as it often just angers other Users by encouraging bad faith. Accusing "I gave you a month to correct that and you have failed to do so. That's not ethical or responsible." is frankly utterly despicable behaviour, and defies many basic editing policies, especially PA.

As I've already explained above, "Highly ionised" is correct, as it usefully / generally distinguishes between low ionisation gases, low ionised plasma and truly highly ionised plasmas (as observed in the Sun. Nothing you have given actually "provided irrefutable evidence and citations' e.g. "...conductivity nearly equal to that of a full ionized gas The quote of your on 5th Jan agrees. Clearly, the circumstances of plasma are wide and varied, and depend significantly between pressures, temperatures, and magnetic/electric fields. It is merely written as a simplification. As such, I do not think it should be changed at all. Sorry. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Some recent revisions and reversions of the lede

As per this edit: , Attic Salt suggests that a "not good sentence" and redundancy can be removed, and that an absolute "are" should be replaced with "can be" sot that the lede section closes with the sentence:

"Because the particles are charged, they can be strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields."

On the other hand, as per this edit: , Arianewiki1 suggests that editor Attic Salt might have some sort of agenda, reverting the lede section to close with the following two sentences:

"Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields. All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields."

Input is sought to resolve this disagreement and provide a better lede for this article. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. Claiming any 'disagreement' is plainly fictitious. If true, then why the need totally remove the statement "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." ? Attic Salt claims the so-called 'absolute' is 'are', but the text plainly says 'are likely', which instantly removes the absolute. Saying 'can be' makes no sense, but that is irrelevant, because action was just delete the text. Simple logic says that statement is plainly true. e.g. Are astrophysical plasmas actually influenced by electric fields? If so, then: How do electric fields manifest in interstellar or intergalactic space exactly? How do we detect or observe these astrophysical plasmas?

References to support this include "Naturally occurring plasmas in space and astrophysical environments are threaded by magnetic fields and exist in a turbulent state." "Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in space, and their role in affecting astrophysical processes is difficult to overestimate.". Even influence of many common problems with astrophysical plasmas are theoretically calculated and modeled via the so-called 'weak magnetic field approximation', where components of gravity fields are expressed in terms of magnetic / electromagnetic fields and are combined into one set of formulae.

The statement in this form was originally added as "All known astrophysical plasmas are influenced by magnetic fields" by ජපස I then changed this to remove the absolute statement by ජපස, which was inherently false. (Oddly, the promotion of the earlier version of this article from 2008 (150 edits ago.) appears here , but modifies it to suit their plasma promotion. However, they make no distinction between space plasma and astrophysical plasma. This current WP article has had all the pseudoscience removed.)

Also the FULL statement is : "Much of the baryonic matter of the universe is thought to consist of plasma, a state of matter in which atoms and molecules are so hot, that they have ionized by breaking up into their constituent parts, negatively charged electrons and positively charged ions. Because the particles are charged, they are strongly influenced by electromagnetic forces, that is, by magnetic and electric fields. All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields."

Why just conveniently remove qualifications to seemingly promote or contest some 'alternate' view or deliberately look for some weakness and then ultimately use it as a wedge? (Again, evidence of an agenda here?) IMO, it is the most crucial point or part of the whole article. How can this ever be construed as 'redundancy'?

• @Attic Salt: Canvassing for support like this is a dangerous tactic, and can be perceived as WP:VOTESTACK and begins to look like WP:FORUMSHOP or forum shopping. (Especially after the last long Plasma (physics) discussions.) Please Attic Salt stop canvassing others like this. If you need to do this use {{subst:Uw-canvass}} but in doing so, please make sure to select other independent Users more carefully. Just looking at this history and the requesting ten WP:FRS does suggests some possible promoting / searching for Fringe science topics to influence. If so, please stop it.

This is not a strong case. Thanks and WP:Desist. Arianewiki1 (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Since there are only two participants in this discussion now, I suggest one of you request an uninvolved third opinion at WP:3O. VQuakr (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Sincere thanks for the neutrality in light of Canvassing here, but evidence suggests the 'complaint' as it is, is just frivolous. Attic Salt absolutely knows this.. Rewording the text would have been fine, however, the deletion was just deliberately provocative. So why even do this or even bother with a WP:3O? Arianewiki1 (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

At least part of the problem with the mentions of electric and magnetic fields (as they presently are in the lede), is that electric and magnetic fields are barely discussed in the interior of the article, same for "electromagnetic" fields, barely discussed (briefly as radiation). And the sentence, "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." is certainly strange. Definitive in one sense ("all"), but qualified in another sense ("likely"). What exactly is "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." supposed to mean? Anyway, Arianewiki1, I don't know why you are so strident with your comments. I assure you, I have not "agenda". Let's get input from others. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I requested input from a 3rd party, as per the suggestion by VQuakr. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably no longer necessary. I have rewritten the questioned text in and made further modifications or reorganisation to improve subject's clarity. Any further issues should be brought up under a new Added topic on this Talkpage. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I found this talk on the 3O wall. Has the dispute been resolved now? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

More like overwhelmed by a lot of text and hostility. If you can weigh in with comments and suggestions on the lede, that would help. Attic Salt (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I made a few corrections. I take it neither of you are native English speakers, am I wrong? What else do you think needs attention or clarification User:Attic Salt? 188.29.16Etc.BlahBlahBlah (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved. I have removed all the contentions. There would not have a problem had Attic Salt bothered not to made a direct controversial removal but instead had started a discussion on the talkpage first. Sure you can remove any text that is not cited, but after the recent issues with the Introduction on the plasma (physics) page and the persistent need to remove/avoid pseudo and fringe science, one would think it would have been a prudent and better course of action to discuss before deleting it. Please read WP:Burden again, as it explains how this best works. Also using WP:3O specifically says Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. Where is the discussion / 'disagreement' other than the initial edit comment then? Direct evidence suggests this just looks like a targeted edit - plainly bad faith.

Really. Attic Salt already knows this is a difficult subject to explain simply (from past history) – especially as astrophysical plasma generate its own magnetic field, but in weak or non-coherent or turbulent preexisting magnetic fields, say in intergalactic space, the plasma also interacts with those fields. As the evidence for astrophysical plasmas or these magnetic fields are difficult or impossible to observe or measure, we can simply say "All astrophysical plasmas are likely influenced by magnetic fields." Plainly the reasoning is self evident. Yet somehow this is redundant?

Having removed as much of the fringe science in this article, and knowing the inadequacy of the current text (I've added the leading templates and needed citations too) one would think a far more constructive action would be to add new citations or expand the article to improve it. All we get in this instance is someone bemoaning some statement, delete it, then expect everyone else to support their actions? Of the zillions of possible needed improvements to this article so why just target this? All I want to improve articles not just deconstruct them.

To save time and argument, I've just rewitten it to remove these objections. As for If you can weigh in with comments and suggestions on the lede, that would help. Well, instead, how about actually add something new to improve it? Attic Salt any ideas for the main article Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I've already written this prior to the last comment by User:Arianewiki1, so here it is: I'm not sure what's the state of this discussion in light of recent changes, so I'll be brief: Always be careful when ascribing an "agenda" to someone; for caution, stick with Hanlon's razor. I'm not sure why the article is tagged as "fringe", but if any such content made it through it needs to be removed sooner rather than later. User:Attic Salt is right that the sentence was redundant and read oddly. The phrase "All known astrophysical plasmas are influenced by magnetic fields" is by far the most readable than any that have been suggested here. If it is inaccurate, it can easily be qualified as "Most know astrophysical plasmas...". The current phrasing is slightly cumbersome, and not entirely relevant. Here's an alternative for your consideration: An astrophysical plasma is a plasma (highly ionized gas) that occurs in the depth of space, and is studied as part of astrophysics . This is usually distinct from the associated term space plasma, which is plasma that occurs naturally in the Earth's upper atmosphere. Evidence suggests that astrophysical plasmas are a common phenomena in space, with some suggesting that much of matter observable in the universe exists in this state. As atoms and molecules are heated up they become ionized, breaking up to their constituent particles, the negatively-charged electrons and positively-charged ions. These electrically-charged particles are susceptible to influence by local electromagnetic fields: both strong fields generated by stars, or weak fields that exist in star forming regions and the interstellar and intergalactic mediums. Similarly, electric fields are observed in stellar astrophysical phenomena, but are inconsequential in very low density gaseous mediums. François Robere (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I revised the lede accordingly. Attic Salt (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Study sheds light on turbulence in astrophysical plasmas : Theoretical analysis uncovers new mechanisms in plasma turbulence". MIT News. Retrieved 2018-02-20.
2. Chiuderi, C.; Velli, M. (2015). Basics of Plasma Astrophysics. Springer. p. 17. ISBN 978-88-470-5280-2.
3. "Understanding of the role of magnetic fields: Galactic perspective" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-02-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)

• Stub-Class Astronomy articles
• Low-importance Astronomy articles
• Stub-Class Astronomy articles of Low-importance
• Stub-Class physics articles
• Low-importance physics articles
• Stub-Class physics articles of Low-importance