Monday, April 20, 2009

Hannes Alfvén

"Hannes Alfvén is the central figure in the emerging electric plasma cosmology." -- Donald E. Scott, electrical engineer, 2006

"There is also the Plasma Model, first proposed by Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Hannes Alfvén in 1965. It is rapidly gaining wide international support from the scientific community, due in no small measure to it's rock solid empirical base and the weight of observational evidence on it's side. The predictions of Plasma Cosmology have passed every single test that has come from empirical evidence over a period of forty years. Makes you think, doesn't it?" -- Hilton Ratcliffe, astronomer, 2007

I have collected all six of his books now, some very difficult to locate.

Stephen Smith: Hot Gas Vs. Electric Currents.

Perhaps the lack of knowledge regarding electricity in space can account for the opinion that gases colliding produce x-ray and other energetic emissions. After all, perception comes through training and education, so without exposure to the theories of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén regarding the behavior of electricity flowing through plasma no perception of its behavior can exist in the mind's eye.

Alfvén said: "The cosmical plasma physics of today . . .is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."


Quantum_Flux said...

Well, electricity is tricky complex stuff, not everything is an RCL circuit, motor, transistor, or an operational amplifier. It is easy to see where mathematical models and computer simulations can fall short with relative ease given the unpredictable nature of electrical currents through gaseous mediums.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

Everything you say is true: The Fundamental Force of electromagnetism is very hard to reduce to mathematical equations...but isn't that the true challenge, do the difficult?

If electromagnetism can't be reduced to mathematical equations, it's not the fault of electromagnetism, is it?

(I suggest electromagnetism can be formalized into equations -- there's the challenge.)

Mathematics is successful at predictions only if the mathematical equations are based on observed & measured physical relationships, quantification, that have been verified.

General principles don't provide a firm foundation for mathematical interpretation.

As an example:

Mathematics can't predict the ability of matter to achieve ultra-high density.

(A necessity for the so-called "big bang" and "black hole" hypothesises.)

Mathematics is a language, a human construct, therefore, it has no more likelyhood to be an accurate tool than language, itself: Mathematics can describe reality or it can describe man's desired imagnination.

The physical substance has the final say.

Only by observation & measurement can Science construct a mathematical language that is an accurate representation of the relationships of the physical substance.

In other words, the function of mathematics is a postscript quantification of material substance (at least in the study of physics), not an a priori set of values that predict all behaviors.

Specifically, just because a set of mathematical equations can describe the ultra-high densities required for "black holes" provides no scientific evidence that in Nature such ultra-high densities are physically possible.

OilIsMastery said...


"I suggest electromagnetism can be formalized into equations -- there's the challenge."


OilIsMastery said...

"Mathematics can't predict"


OilIsMastery said...

"Mathematics is a language"

And people can say silly things in any language.

Anaconda said...

"And people can say silly things in any language."


Science fiction can be compelling -- provide a "suspension of disbelief" necessary for any good novel.

"It seemed so real."

Well...just because it seemed real, doesn't make it so.

"Modern" astronomy, even by their own lights, doesn't know what goes on inside the "black box", aka, a so-called "black hole".

That admission alone should be enough for "modern" astronomy to allow consideration of alternative theories.

(Which theories have comprehensive ideas for what goes on inside the "black box" and scientific evidence to support the ideas -- maybe, it's not a "black box" at all.)

Isn't that what Science is all about?

Quantum_Flux said...

Anaconda: Mathematics is a language, a human construct

QF: Tell that to ET!

Quantum_Flux said...

....ET will still get the same answer when asked what the length of the hypotenuse is for a right triangle, even if the units are measured in alien dicks instead of light years. The volume of a sphere will still be the same regardless of whether a human or a dolphin computes it, or even if a bacterium does the computing. The number of radiums (the ratio of a circle diameter to the radius) in a full circular ark will be the same no matter what society invents the symbolism. Parallel lines in a flat plane will never intersect each other....math is not human construct, but axiomatic reality, this is why many different civilizations throughout history have repeatedly rediscovered the same sets of axioms and mathematical theorems for utilization in their practical applications.

OilIsMastery said...

Kant said space, time, and Euclidean geometry are a priori even for ET.

So if Kant is right, even extraterrestrials realize that relativity is a joke.

Quantum_Flux said...

I'm sure that the axioms that form the basis for hyperbolic and elliptical geometries are also "a priori" for ET as well as the axioms that form the basis for Plane Euclidean Geometry.

But then you run into the mathematical possibility for the theory of General Relativity, which is the one that says spacetime exhibits a curvature, in other words an intrinsic positive expanding acceleration. That is supposedly data obtained from Hubble's Law, which you say is a logical recursion of the following:

(1) The galaxies that are the furthest away are the most redshifted. And therefore (2) the the galaxies that are the most redshifted are the furthest away.

which can only be disproved by using triangulation methods to determine the actual distances, a proposition that does not necessarily disprove General Relativity and the curvature of spacetime but does indeed test Hubble's Law though, as opposed to assuming it.

Quantum_Flux said...

Even if Hubbles Law holds true, electrical forces are still a likely candidate for the dark matter that has been observed of 'glueing' the galaxies so they don't fly apart, as well as perhaps repelling and attracting the galaxies....this, of course, I wouldn't want to quantize using a Latin Square type method like String Theorists are doing (WTF are they thinking!?), so we should get observing instead.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

QF states: "....ET will still get the same answer when asked what the length of the hypotenuse is for a right triangle, even if the units are measured in alien dicks instead of light years."

Yes, this is true, but the mathematics describes a geometric relationship. The mathematics is a language (in physics, anyway) that describes an already existing reality.

Mathematics didn't create the geometric relationship.

Let's try this another way. What came first, "the length of the hypotenuse is for a right triangle", or Man's attempt to describe and quantify the relationship?

Man didn't create the geometric relationship, rather, Man was successful in analyzing the relationship and then describing and quantifying that relationship by mathematical language.

That's why "ET" would come up with the same answer because the geometric relationship is independent of Man's language used to describe it.

But, perhaps, that is where the difficulty lies for you, Quantum_Flux, to conceptualize mathematics as a language.

Also, success at "postscript" description has lulled mathematicians into thinking, "if I can conceptualize it and then mathematically describe the conceptualization, that makes it 'real'."


Valid mathematical description depends on a pre-existing physical reality being observed & measured, and only then postscript analysis and quantification.

The key word is "description".

You can only "describe" something that is already "there".

QF states: "I'm sure that the axioms that form the basis for hyperbolic and elliptical geometries are also "a priori" for ET as well as the axioms that form the basis for Plane Euclidean Geometry."

No, the geometries were not "a priori" for ET -- ET went through the same process as Man, a pre-existing geometric relationship was observed, measured, analyzied, and then quantified.

Mathematics was "postscript" for ET just the same as Man.

Mathematics (in physics) does not create reality, but describes and quantifies a pre-existing physical relationship.

The only way for Man to to gain this understanding is by experience, in other words, observation & measurement.

You may want to think of it as a universal language, but it is language just the same.

Mathematics can't predict ultra-high density is physically possible, for example: 100 million tons in the tip of your pinkey finger -- the density postulated for a "neutron" star.

That is where "modern" astronomy has made a crucial mistake -- they have allowed themselves to believe that mathematical equations devoid of observation & measurement can predict physical reality.

Perhaps this is an effective way to communicate this most important point: The map is not the territory.

Only by observation & measurement does the "map" approximate the "territory".

And having a "perfect" map of one part of the territory based on minute observation & measurement does nothing to suggest the map will be perfect for another part of the territory, which was not observed & measured, based solely on the fact the map was perfect for the former part of the territory.

Each part of the territory must be observed & measured to insure the map for that corresponding territory is accurate.

Assuming the map is accurate for an unobserved & unmeasured part of the territory because the map is accurate for a part of the territory that was observed & measured is a fallacy.

Yet, that is exactly what "modern" astronomy is guilty of.

Quantum_Flux said...

Mathematics is both, the study of geometrical and functional relationships as well as the linguistic symbolizing of those geometrical and functional relationships. I'd like you to look at the way in which the Mayan's symbolized their exponential number system and tell me that they weren't also experts at mathematics. Sure, the formalism is different, but it still is the study of quantitative relationships and geometries, and hence it is still Mathematics that they knew.

The bizare thing is that Each digit was exponentially greater than the previous digit.

X0*(20^0) + X1*(20^1) + X2*(20^2) .... + Xn*(20^n)

Whereby Xi = 5*Bar(i)+ 1*Dot(i) for "i" from 0 to n....where Bar(i) is a numeral from 1 to 3 and Dot(i) is a numeral from 1 to 4., I realize there are hundreds of different ways I could have just symbolized what I said, the mayan numeral system therefore has a 1 to many relationship. The important thing in that analysis is the mathematical study of the Mayan Numeral System itself though, not the symbolization of it.

Quantum_Flux said...

....I think we can truly say that "the Mayan numeral system is greater than our own numeral system". Oh sure, they were counting on their fingers and toes, but they were doing so and symbolizing it exponentially.

Anaconda said...

@ Quantum_Flux:

I have no problems with your reference to Mayan mathematics or expanding it to include "study".

Quantum_Flux said...

I just figured out that the Mayans do the exact same thing we do, just plugging in 10 in the place of 20 (they counted on toes), and having the bars go from 0 to 1 instead of from 1 to 4, while having the dots go from 0 to 4 instead of 1 to 4.