Galactic plasma flows

Interesting article about plasma flows connecting isolated regions of the Milky Way galaxy.

Million-Degree Plasma May Flow throughout the Galaxy

On a large scale, the Milky Way is considered to be a vast cold region punctured with isolated hot clouds and star clusters. While much of this space is cold and empty, researchers have recently discovered the phenomenon of funneling hot plasma. Flowing plasma may funnel from one region to another through empty space, connecting otherwise isolated clouds and clusters throughout the galaxy.

Researcher Manuel Güdel at the Paul Scherrer Institut in Switzerland and colleagues from Switzerland, France and the US have recently observed the plasma flow phenomenon for the first time in the Orion Nebula. Based on images taken with an x-ray satellite called the XMM-Newton, the researchers observed the existence of a million-degree plasma flowing from the nebula into the adjacent interstellar medium, and then into the neighbouring superbubble Eridanus.

“Although there has been a theoretical model that predicted hot gas bubbles blown by just one massive star, such has not been detected until we found confirmation in the Orion Nebula,” Güdel told PhysOrg.com. “We didn't look for it - we actually found this diffuse emission by chance while looking at the many stellar x-ray point sources in the field. As previous researchers have not reported diffuse x-ray emission from such star-forming regions but were rather arguing against its presence, we were indeed surprised to find such prominent emission across large regions of the nebula.”

Fascinating, no? It looks like some aspects of Plasma Cosmology may not be so wrong after all.

It's pretty cool but I don't think it's fascinating.

A plasma flow does not a cosmology make.

reply to post by buddhasystem




I guess I'm easily fascinated. At any rate, I said some aspects of Plasma Cosmology

How much of the Universe is comprised of Plasma? Is it 70%?

Continue researching this exciting field and perhaps what you as an individual can come up with will bring new insights to this expanding field of cosmology.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's pretty cool but I don't think it's fascinating.

A plasma flow does not a cosmology make.

Now that the debunking is out of the way...

Of course one piece of information does not make a whole cosmology. How absurd that you would assume such a thing, and your statement is somewhat telling of your attitude on the topic as a whole. A cosmology is composed of a framework from which the universe is viewed, using multiple assumptions and observations formed into a coherent whole.

Beach, thanks for the contribution. While the article claims it is a first, in my memory there was another discovery many years ago of an intergalactic... ah yes that was an intergalactic filament, whereas this is talking about intra-galactic flow. Anyhow, I'm not surprised at all that it was discovered. More surprised that it was acknowledged. And yes, it is fascinating, and ties in nicely with the many other aspect of plasma cosmology. On lunch break, gotta go.

reply to post by antar


The PC people (that's Plasma Cosmology, not Political Correctness) say 99.9%. They base this argument on the fact that the same percentage holds true for our own solar system -- 99.9% of it's mass is the Sun, and the Sun is basically a giant ball of plasma.

Originally posted by Ionized
Of course one piece of information does not make a whole cosmology.

Well then, how come we have this term floating here on ATS, "plasma cosmology"? It has no more meaning than "chemical health" or "electric nucleus".

How absurd that you would assume such a thing

As you see, I didn't invent the (absurd, as you say) term "plasma cosmology". You see? I agree with you -- then again, I didn't assume anything.

Anyhow, I'm not surprised at all that it was discovered.

Neither am I, as is evident in my reply to OP.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Well then, how come we have this term floating here on ATS, "plasma cosmology"? It has no more meaning than "chemical health" or "electric nucleus".

But still it has more meaning then "dark matter" and "dark energy"

As you see, I didn't invent the (absurd, as you say) term "plasma cosmology". You see? I agree with you -- then again, I didn't assume anything.

No... you mostly choose to accept standard assumptions, and look at other assumptions as absurd , we allready know this.

Neither am I, as is evident in my reply to OP.

But still you think plasma cosmology is absurd, even though you where not surprised.

Originally posted by Bluess
But still it has more meaning then "dark matter" and "dark energy"

It's quite remarkable how "mainstream science" is often accused of being stale and not open minded and such, and at the same time truly revolutionary concepts originated in science simply don't sink in the minds of same people.

But still you think plasma cosmology is absurd, even though you where not surprised.

I am not surprised (and never was) that there is plasma in certain regions of space, which may be subject to complex flow patterns and magnetic fields. However, the term "plasma cosmology", as I already said, is a uniquely pompous and misleading device with no real model to back it up.

reply to post by Ionized


I don't know if this is related to plasma phenomenon or not, but it's interesting nonetheless:

Milky Way's gravity pulling hydrogen gas from smaller galaxies

A large finger-shaped wedge of hydrogen gas is being drawn towards our galaxy from other, smaller galaxies by the gravitational pull of the Milky Way, Australian astronomers have discovered.

Another article about the same thing:
Doomed galaxies giving us the finger



Love that headline!

[edit on 7-2-2008 by Beachcoma]

One of the standard responses from mainstream adherents has been denial of the paradigmatic status of plasma cosmology. This seems to come from a basic lack of understanding of what a paradigm really is, and how it relates to a shift in fundamental assumptions within a cosmological framework. I have encountered this exact type of response before, and after many attempts at reconciliation, I realized that some mainstream adherents appear to be incapable of accepting that an alternate view can form a coherent framework. Perhaps they are not incapable, but rather choose to deny the framework for a reason. Denial that an alternate framework exists, and subsequent ignorance of that frameworks basic foundations, allows the mainstream adherent to justify further denial that pieces of evidence fit well within that framework. The pieces are viewed as just that... pieces, with no overarching theory that allows connections to be made. Connections that are made are simply dismissed as nonsense, because they are not understood by the people who choose to ignore the possibilities.

Beachcoma, what you just posted above me is also an interesting article. Interesting in that it is assumed that gravity is responsible for the filamentary shapes. Nice find!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well then, how come we have this term floating here on ATS, "plasma cosmology"? It has no more meaning than "chemical health" or "electric nucleus".

Your inability to find meaning in a very meaningful, thought provoking, in-depth topic, should not be something to brag about. This term didn't originate on ATS either. Your dismissal of the paradigm was clear in the first thread on the subject, must you keep coming back for more?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
As you see, I didn't invent the (absurd, as you say) term "plasma cosmology". You see? I agree with you -- then again, I didn't assume anything.

Your ability to twist who said what and what they meant, is right up there with the many other mainstream apologists I have run across over the years. Anyone who re-reads what I wrote should recognize that I never said the term was absurd. Over the many years I have helped to popularize it, why would I ever call it absurd? And then you say you agree with me to make it really sound like I said that. Extraordinary technique you have, I'll have to trust that people can see right through it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Neither am I, as is evident in my reply to OP.

On this one I was referencing the Article, not anything you said. Please take what I say in the context that it was written. In the article it was claimed that this was a surprising find. No, it wasn't a surprise at all. In reality, this type of find is expected within the framework of plasma cosmology.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's quite remarkable how "mainstream science" is often accused of being stale and not open minded and such, and at the same time truly revolutionary concepts originated in science simply don't sink in the minds of same people.

Don't generalize too much now. I for one have studied plenty of 'mainstream science' and was fascinated by the vast history of discoveries and the process of discovery. Plasma cosmology is very much founded upon scientific principles as well.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am not surprised (and never was) that there is plasma in certain regions of space, which may be subject to complex flow patterns and magnetic fields. However, the term "plasma cosmology", as I already said, is a uniquely pompous and misleading device with no real model to back it up.

Clearly you have not taken the time to go read all of the material that was presented in the other threads, or to read any of the sources offered, such as Alfven's book 'Cosmic Plasma'. For if you had, you would not be making such 'uniquely pompous' remarks like the one you just made above. Now, I have met mainstream apologists who latter were convinced to read the sources in full. Their view on the subject changed at least to the point where acknowledgment of the existence of the alternate paradigm was finally admitted. Whether or not they believed any of it didn't matter, the fact that they admitted an alternate exists is a very important step.

Again, Plasma Cosmology is a paradigm, an overarching thought process. The fact that you fail to see evidence which backs it is unfortunately part of the paradigmatic nature of evidence within the scientific enterprise. From your paradigm the evidence is put together differently; you are unable to comprehend the manner in which plasma cosmologists think, hence you dismiss the paradigm as non-existent. This is nothing new, but quite frankly it gets tiring having to keep shoving evidence into someones head only to have it pass right through, such as what ZueZZ has been doing. You see I don't spend much time doing that (trust me many many years ago I spent plenty of time doing that.) Nowadays I am personally more interested in talking to the people who are going to listen.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


It's quite remarkable how "mainstream science" is often accused of being stale and not open minded and such, and at the same time truly revolutionary concepts originated in science simply don't sink in the minds of same people.

In my mind, the problem with dark matter and dark energy in the manner in which the concept came about.

Basically, you had an accepted theory with observations and behaviour that did not match it. Now, ordinarily scientific method would dictate that you change the theory to match the observations. This should lead ot the standard model being heavily scrutinised and possibly thrown out, because the observations were so far from theory.

Instead, the theory has been entrenched and new observations are being sought to validate it. Including the conceptualisation of dark matter and dark energy. This is basically because we werent able to 'see' the data which validated the model. So, we decided that the data has eluded us and must be 'dark'. We effectively 'made up' and observation to support the theory, instead of throwing out a theory which appears to be way out of whack.

Its that kind of logic which i cannot understand, and i feel that a desire for complexity and ever-increasing revolutionary concepts has taken over from true scientific method.

This is why plasma cosmology appeals to me. It relies on experimentation and observation. Sure, it has a long way to go before it ties up the loose ends but i feel it has enough going for it for me to discard the 'dark' theories which i simply cannot logically accept.

Originally posted by zvezdar
Basically, you had an accepted theory with observations and behaviour that did not match it.

Well, sure, and it's pretty exciting.

Now, ordinarily scientific method would dictate that you change the theory to match the observations. This should lead ot the standard model being heavily scrutinised and possibly thrown out, because the observations were so far from theory.

You are probably unaware of the high degree of scrutiny the Standard Model of elementary particle has underwent/is undergoing. It holds amazingly well. There can be supersets of this theory such as Supersymmetry.

Instead, the theory has been entrenched and new observations are being sought to validate it. Including the conceptualisation of dark matter and dark energy. This is basically because we werent able to 'see' the data which validated the model.

Again, 'seeing' something which was proposed is a matter of method. Initially, at the dawn of particle physics, it was not possible to visualize tracks of charged particles. Later, methods were found to do that and more. Surely science got it right, without resorting to voodoo. And then, existence of neutrino was proposed to explain strange phenomena... Again, it took a while before we were be able to detect these elusive particles. Conceptually, therefore, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising about the existence of objects which presently are out of reach of directo observation. Extra-solar planets were first discovered this way. If you limit yourself to only trusting that which you can immediately see, you'll hardly make any progress in learining about how this Universe works.

So, we decided that the data has eluded us and must be 'dark'. We effectively 'made up' and observation to support the theory, instead of throwing out a theory which appears to be way out of whack.

Read the above.

Its that kind of logic which i cannot understand, and i feel that a desire for complexity and ever-increasing revolutionary concepts has taken over from true scientific method.

There is no desire for complexity in science. Indeed, the very core of theory is almost invariably reduced to a handful of compact equations. You should know that.

This is why plasma cosmology appeals to me. It relies on experimentation and observation.

Well, there is that, the seductive power of simplicity, which comes at the hefty price of reality. Cosmic phenomena are very complex; the "plasma cosmology" pseudotheory is lacking quantitative component and relies on simplistic analogies such as "look! there is solar corona! It kinda looks like corona discharge! that's it! We just made a discovery!"

Fruitless.

Originally posted by Ionized
Again, Plasma Cosmology is a paradigm, an overarching thought process. The fact that you fail to see evidence which backs it is unfortunately part of the paradigmatic nature of evidence within the scientific enterprise. From your paradigm the evidence is put together differently; you are unable to comprehend the manner in which plasma cosmologists think, hence you dismiss the paradigm as non-existent.

Dear Ionized,

I find it weird and entertaining, actually, that you overloaded your post with the word "paradigm". It's a fine word to be sure, but 4 times in a single short paragraph is too much, don't you think?

It's pretty rich to call this feeble attempt at explanation of everything as a network of currents (flowing God knows for what reasons) a "paradigm". Your "paradigm" is little more than emperor's new clothes.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's pretty rich to call this feeble attempt at explanation of everything as a network of currents (flowing God knows for what reasons) a "paradigm". Your "paradigm" is little more than emperor's new clothes.

So you still haven't read any of the books or papers that describe the subject, it's history, or it's paradigmatic status? Do you even know what a paradigm is?

Since you clearly don't care, what incentive is there for me or anyone to teach you? Don't wait for me to convince you, you're going to have to do some research on your own. In order for you to understand, you're also going to have to drop some of your bias and basic assumptions.

Maybe you are just trolling me at this point, I suppose I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Let me start by saying that i am surprised to see you ascribe validity to supersymmetry. What are your thoughts on brane theory, if you wouldn't mind? I only ask because it seems like an interesting concept.

I hear you say that you are a scientist (in physics, correct?). However, your threads are very unscientific. Most of what you have started is either sociopolitical or some manner of debunking. Very rarely do i see you post much that requires a knowledge level above what my son requires for his finals this year in high school. I believe that your input has been requested (by myself) regarding material deeply entrenched in the world of physics. I haven't gotten much in response, to be frank.

The last time i visited with you in this forum i asked you what your purpose here was. You have not responded. If you truly are what you claim, then i am disappointed in your posting activity here. "Defending Sanity" could likely be better served by posting positive messages about what you believe to be fact, rather than arguing with people who (judging by the way you can tend to treat people) you don't really like interacting with.

Let's stay on track, please!

Attack the topic, not each other.



Galactic plasma flows...

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Again, 'seeing' something which was proposed is a matter of method. Initially, at the dawn of particle physics, it was not possible to visualize tracks of charged particles. Later, methods were found to do that and more. Surely science got it right, without resorting to voodoo. And then, existence of neutrino was proposed to explain strange phenomena... Again, it took a while before we were be able to detect these elusive particles. Conceptually, therefore, there is nothing wrong with hypothesising about the existence of objects which presently are out of reach of directo observation. Extra-solar planets were first discovered this way. If you limit yourself to only trusting that which you can immediately see, you'll hardly make any progress in learining about how this Universe works.

I guess you misunderstood me. Everything you described there has some kind of ordinary phyisical interaction which can be observed in a direct way. The case of extra-solar planets is actually a nice one to have pointed out. We believe we have detected them, and once we are able to image them we can determine how well we were able to predict the presence of those planets. But i am cautious in accepting that their discovery is 100% proven until they are directly observed. According to our theory, they are there. Direct imaging will be a good validation and proof.

Same thing in the other areas you described, direct observation *was* possible. It was a technological issue holding it back.

With dark matter, its a slightly different story as i understand it. You basically have a form of matter that doesnt noticably interact with the rest of the universe, other than in terms of its gravitational force. It *must* exist for the current theories to hold!

So i hold off on any belief that it actually exists, until such time as the experiments can be designed to directly detect it. It may have slipped by me, but i dont see that happening.

It seems way more likely that we have got something else wrong. Perhaps our measurement of the expansion of the universe? Perhaps we dont quite understand how our observations of redshift hold over vast distances? There are a number of things that we could have wrong. We should never assume that we are 100% correct. We're almost always wrong, in fact.

There is no desire for complexity in science. Indeed, the very core of theory is almost invariably reduced to a handful of compact equations. You should know that.

I agree, there is no desire for complexity. However it seems to be the case that complexity is increasingly required to explain the observed. That tells me that we went wrong somewhere.

I guess my point is that a theory such as plasma cosmology deserves to be seriously looked at before it is discarded. Observations such as these plasma flows add to the physical evidence, which to me seems to be mounting. There is enough there to suggest that these scientists may be on to something. Lets not dismiss it out of hand because it doesnt fit our 'consensus' view. A scientific consensus can be a dangerous thing.

Instead, lets see if we cant come up with a theory to match the increasing importance of plasma we are seeing in the universe (and lets call 'plasma', plasma, when we see it!)

[edit on 12-2-2008 by zvezdar]