Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Expert needed?

An anonymous editor just requested an expert to look at this article. I certainly do not not object to further work by an expert, but I doubt that you will be able to find anyone on Wikipedia more expert on this specialized sideline of science than ScienceApologist and myself, who have already contributed heavily. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Heaven forbid Eric Lerner should contribute anything to his own party after you gatecrashed, drank all the beer and threw him out. :-P Jon (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope the editor requesting an expert did not have Eric Lerner in mind, since he has been banned from editing this article. Eric Lerner could contribute his expertise on this talk page, but I doubt he has anything to say that has not already been considered. BTW, you surely are not suggesting that Eric Lerner or anybody else owns this article, are you? --Art Carlson (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, ScienceApologist may be familiar with mainstream astronomy, and have worked alot on the article, but is no expert on plasma cosmology. The errors in the article are extensive. (a) Alfven did not propose "that the universe was an ionized equal mixture of matter and anti-matter", an idea which is dervived from Klein and Dirac. Aflven only explained how they might coexist, and coined the word "ambiplasma" (b) Plasma cosmology has not been rejected, as is evident from the signatories of the http://cosmologystatement.org/ though particular parts of it have been criticised, and it is not accepted. (c) It is inaccurate to say that "The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds" (which was published in 1966, and ignores the 1962 paper by Alfven and Klein, and ), and ignores Alfven's papers from the 1930 and 1940s (d) Klein-Alfven cosmology is not synonymous with Plasma Cosmology. (e) The section "Comparison to mainstream cosmology" has just one reference that mentions plasma cosmology making the whole section opinionated unverifiable original research, that largely promotes "mainstream" cosmology. (f) There is no such thing as a "non-standard cosmology", and the reference does not refer to Plasma Cosmology in this way, and I know of no source that does.

The article had a genuine expert on the subject, Eric Lerner, who has published both peer-reviewed articles on the subject, and a book, and writes impartial science articles for a living. Statements of fact in his banning offered no examples of wrong-doing or misrepresentation when contributing to this article. --69.42.49.67 (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are interested in actively improving the article, you can propose concrete changes based on your points. We can then discuss them here one by one. Otherwise we will just have to wait for an editor who is both an expert on plasma cosmology (not just on plasma or cosmology alone) and is also considered by the community to be civil and constructive. That would be great, but I won't hold my breath. --Art Carlson (talk) 09:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a hoot.. There have been multiple attempts at 'civil and constructive' contribution by experts on this topic and for years their efforts have been attacked by the non-experts in an un-civil and destructive manner here. - Ionized

Sounds like you had an expert, and then you booted him. Which seems to be the usual course of events when someone who is merely knowledgeable of the topic at hand crosses swords with someone who is knowledgeable of Wikipedia administrivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.81.41 (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately all the experts relevent to plasma cosmology are banned from this wiki. Its a tragic situation at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.3.106 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Eric Lerner is the only person banned from editing this article. It is indeed unfortunate that he was not willing to contribute constructively to the article. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the rest of the people in here. Banning Lerner, a published plasma cosmologist, from editing the article and then altering the article to fill it full of complete misrepresentations is among the most grotesque acts of scientific censorship I have ever witnessed on Wikipedia to-date. The acts of ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson are deplorable and are unbecoming of professional scientists who should know better than to act out of personal dislike for a theory.--158.61.151.200 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Having read the arbitration, I do not understand why Lerner was banned. He was an expert who currently works in the field and was banned for this? This article is very opinionated and seems to be intended to discredit the idea of a plasma cosmology. ScienceAppologist and Art Carlson seem to believe that they own this article and shall be the ones to approve any information in this article. Both were found to be edit warring, but were not banned? I have learned quite a bit from Wikipedia and was very disappointed, having found this article. It lacks objectivity and has fallen victim to politics over science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.219.10 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, 68.101.219.10. I knew nothing about plasma cosmology before I stumbled on a link to this article while perusing the talk pages for the Halton Arp article. As I read it, something just didn't seem right, so I did what I always do when I want to get a sense of the other side of a topic in Wikipedia - go to the talk pages. Over a period of a week I read the talk page archives and was astounded. I knew nothing about plasma cosmology, and by the time I got through all the talk page archives, and reviewed the Kafkaesque Wikipedia trial of Eric Lerner, I was shocked and disgusted. ScienceApologist and Art Carlson have turned the entire article into a POV diatribe. But I have to hand it to you both: your arguments were so poorly presented and so transparently POV that I've gone from being a person who didn't even know there was such a thing as plasma cosmology 3 months ago to someone who now knows more than either of you probably do. Also, while I appreciate that your sustained and at times violent opposition to plasma cosmology as a "non-standard" cosmology has led me to an immense appreciation for their perspective, I do not appreciate what you've demonstrated to potential Wikipedia editors: that if you're an expert on a subject you're likely to get banned from editing it when dealing with zealots like ScienceApologist, who should have been banned from editing the article long before he actually got himself banned from Wikipedia. For shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyc (talk • contribs) 21:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You're getting personal. Would you also like to get specific? I would be especially interested to learn where I have presented my arguments poorly. Art Carlson (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, Mr. Carlson. You were actually not the problem and I suppose your defence of the notorious POV editor ScienceApologist is what led me to include you in my statement. While you are clearly opposed to the views of many who might call themselves plasma cosmologists, I don't see this as a problem at all, obviously. Reasonable opposition is expected and welcome in the development of a Wikipedia article. However, as an outsider, I expect a Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology to provide an exposition of the history and ideas of plasma cosmologists, with a section devoted to criticism. Instead what I found were attempts at misrepresentation and at times even suppression of what proponents of PC actually believe, with constant attempts to insert the orthodox views wherever possible. The person who should have been banned by the Kafkaesque "Arbcomm" trial was ScienceApologist, who showed nothing but contempt not only for Eric Lerner, but for Wikipedia in general.

Eric Lerner knows a thing or two about plasma cosmology. He was invited to edit this article, everybody seemed pleased that he accepted, and presumably there is no one better to help edit an article on plasma cosmology than a leading plasma cosmologist. Reading through the talk archives after he arrived is like watching a train wreck. Everything that is currently wrong with Wikipedia can easily be seen in the talk pages of this article. One of the most disruptive and notoriously POV editors in the history of Wikipedia was allowed to run amok and get away with edit warring while the most constructive editor of the article was banned from ever editing it again. Instead of indicating that the article is in need of an expert, the tag should read that experts are not allowed to edit the article and if they do they may be subject to a ban. Johnnyc (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This case is over 5 years old, really stale. Frankly, I find that my memory of the incident has faded so much that I can't even make a reliable comment on it. Instead of complaining about things that happened on Wikipedia in an earlier incarnation, why don't you either do the research to suggest some improvements, or (I'll probably regret saying this) contact Lerner to see if he is interested in coming back as an editor? It could well be that we have all matured a bit in the last 5 years, or that some of the personalities butting heads are no longer active. I should maybe add the caveat that the best editors of an article are not always the ones that feel most passionately about the subject. Art Carlson (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Whilst not a cosmologist nor a plasma physicist I have restructured the article to, IMHO, fairly represent the case for plasma cosmology whilst stressing it is a minority scientific POV and showing where mainstream cosmology takes issue with it. In the main these mainstream counter issues have been collected together, rather than letting them disrupt the plasma cosmology arguments. The call for an expert was actually very odd, as Lerner (who is mentioned in the article) is the obvious expert but has been banned from editing these pages, and in the talk section below on 'Astronomer weighing in' it seemed an expert on cosmology was going to contribute - only to discover the self-attributed expert was hopelessly biased (see section below 'Recommend removing IEEE Transactions papers').

The point about subject experts not being allowed to contribute on articles in their subject area is perhaps a policy issue for Wikipedia to consider in general, since it clearly differentiates Wikipedia from Scholarpedia where ONLY subject experts are allowed to contribute. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You make it sound like Lerner was not allowed to edit this article because he was an expert. He was initially welcomed, but proved to be neither cooperative nor unbiased as an editor. Art Carlson (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"... but proved to be neither cooperative nor unbiased as an editor." Unlike all the other self-appointed gatekeepers around here, who are just quintessential examples of unbiased and cooperative editors </sarcasm>. What a waste of good bandwidth Wikipedia has become... Davesmith au (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Too true. I would have liked to see what the article might have become had ScienceApologist not been involved. I came to this article this winter not knowing the topic existed but immediately suspected something was wrong. When I read the talk archives I was just shocked that Lerner was banned. This was SA's tactic all along, I suppose. Behave poorly and incense more reasonable editors, knowing an admin will be on your side and when the time comes, get the best editor of the article banned. It's a disgrace and makes a mockery of Wikipedia's "policies". Johnnyc (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Main differences between PC and mainstream

This edit, adding a subsection Main Differences to the section on Comparison to mainstream cosmology, is highly problematical. It leans very strongly to Lerner's flavor of PC, although that of Alfven is more significant and there have been a few others along the way as well. It makes statements like "Big Bang Theory: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.", which is wrong both in terms of the difference between an assumption and a conclusion from observations, and in terms of the content. That is, there are seriously discussed BB cosmologies that do not have a beginning in time (evolution in time, yes), and most mainstream cosmologists do not believe there will be an end to time. The points are phrased as predictions, even where the issue has been long-ago settled by observations. I did not revert it immediately because it may be possible to refactor it in an acceptable way, but I do not have time now to work on it. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I submit that this is an Iantresman sock: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iantresman. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No its me adam nailor. Cant sign in at the moment. I think you will find all the references were published in very reputable journals that dont publish non science. I could refine it in the future to make each prediction more specific and in line with what the literature says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.195.19 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mr Carlson, am I correct in thinking that what you wrote above is the main issue you saw with that section I wrote and the rest is largely OK? If so you (seeming to have a relatively good knowledge of BBT) can write for each section the properties of BBT, or predictions BBT theory makes, so they aqre correct. And me, having read all of the plasma cosmology literature, right up to most recent developments and models of Lerner, Verschuur, Peratt, et al, can write the equivalent plasma cosmology properties/predictions. There is probably room for nucleosynthesis and element abundances predictions each has made too. So go ahead and copy that section here and write what you think is a reasonable representation of BBT, and I'll add in the PC version afterwards. adam nailor

Anyone going to respond to the above suggestion? adam nailor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.3.106 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the current section on Comparison to mainstream cosmology already does a good job. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Adam, do you have a user account, even if you can't, for some inexplicable reason, sign in to it at the moment? The fact that I can't locate such an account, and a search turns up your name nowhere except this talk page, leads me to wonder whether ScienceApologist's suspicion could be correct. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"Those that banned Lerner should themselves be banned for fraud." -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.165.133 (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits by 213.100.87.94

This edit entails a relatively large number of changes by an anonymous editor. Some may be OK, but for others I am less certain. Would the editor in question (or any supporter of the edits) please explain them here? --Art Carlson (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (For the record, these changes were reverted shortly after by Dougweller. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC))

Looks to me like there is a lot of POV writing in this article, and in particular, from the point of view that "real scientists don't look at plasma cosmology." It concentrates primarily on the work of one man, and uses POV weasle-words to belittle him. Very poorly written, and uses a lot of double-speak in order to "amaze the natives" so to speak. Very condescending, and to the writer, I will offer this advice: people are tired of double-speak and condescending tone from so-called experts on cosmology. Either come up with something that makes sense or go get a real job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.223.176 (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong bias in this article

This article seems to be drowning in undertones of bias against plasma cosmology, repeatedly substituting praise for the Big Bang theory instead of actual article relevant explanations of Plasma Cosmology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.115.35 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is not helpful. Be specific about which passage you find biased, tell us why you think it is wrong or unfair, and suggest a better formulation. That is the way to be constructive and improve the article.

You apparently find this sentence offensive: "Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the major predictions and features of the current models." I believe this to be incontrovertably true and one of the most important facts to know when comparing the two theories.

--Art Carlson (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Woah there, I never pointed out anything in specific. I said the article, as a whole, took a position that was anything but neutral and your hasty comment does not help that.

He's right - there is not "stealth form of creationism" in Alfven's work - he was attempting to put forward an explanation for the lack of antimatter locally, given that quantum theory is utterly symmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter. That is a statement that makes me cringe - in fact the BB could justly be called a sort of religion, in that scientific arguments against it are resolutely ignored. The ambiplasma cosmology was dropped even by its proponents when the annihiliation radiation was not seen. I know, I studied Alfven's work as a physics student and was initially very enthusiastic about it, but had to admit it was wrong because the non-thermal radiation was not seen. 71.56.118.247 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW I am Antimatter33 (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I also want to be more specific here - this article is shit. Alfven was a giant in physics, his thinking was rigorously accurate - even he stated that if there existed any regions of antimatter they would necessarily be on the level of galaxy clusters. There was nothing in his work about x-ray bursts because these were not seen when he was alive. That is just total garbage. There is a cadre of graduate students who drink the standard model Kool-Aid and are incapable of physical or even logical thought, and who know nothing of history. That is what we have here.

What is the grounds for banning Lerner from editing this article? I thought he had some knowledge about both PC and BBT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.45.227 (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Lerner does have plenty of knowledge and plenty of published papers. The problem is that his papers refute most of what this article says. Specifically parts that imply PC can't account for light element abundance. Lerner has also done a lot of interesting published work on Lyman Break Galaxies that supports PC. Don't expect those to see the light of day around here though.

158.61.151.200 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize the article?

I make no claim to any sort of cosmological expertise; instead being firmly in the layman realm. However, it might prove constructive to reorganize this article, for readability purposes. For the sake of argument (and to provide a starting point for discussion), I suggest the following organization:

Introduction/"Executive Summary" of the theory - The bottom line

1. History & Major contributors/influences to PC theory

2. Scientific bases of PC theory

3. Significant differences between Plasma and "Standard" Cosmologies & Points of contention

4. Hypotheses & Observations in support

5. Criticisms of PC theory & Unresolved science

6. (The usual Wikistuff)

199.2.126.188 (talk) 07:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As the Big Bang Theory is drowning in its fudge factors, it must be possible to give this alternative theory some credance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.131.189 (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"As the Big Bang Theory is drowning in its fudge factors, it must be possible to give this alternative theory some credance." Why is that when mainstream science has proven this to be highly unlikely? <chuckles>siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 17:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe thats because its what you call "mainstream science." That is the point of what he, and others, are saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.8.114 (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Misinformative Thesis.

The very first sentence of the second paragraph reads, "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's Theory of general relativity explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales. . . " which links to the 'Big Bang' article and implies that Einstein prescribed to this theory, while it is well known that he maintained throughout life his disbelief in the existence of black holes, big bang, etc. Please explain, or make the change, as I am not versed in the art of wiki. 67.180.8.114 (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You must realize that what Einstein believed or did not believe, or even what he was aware of is not significant when considering the scope of his actual work, and that the extent to which his theories and equations can be applied to phenomena that he was unaware of or did not "believe in" is to his credit regardless of any opinions he may have espoused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

i think i lost myself in ramble. my beef is specifically with the link: regardless of what very precise experts think, theyll be the first to admit its all in theory. i propose that that little link relieves this entire article of merit: "Here's the Real Origin And Evolution Of The Universe.." its more subliminal than anything, but i feel in the spirit of a free and fair wiki THAT LINK MUST NOT STAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.150.22 (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The link says "Here's the Real Consensus of Astrophysicists concerning the Origin And Evolution Of The Universe." That sounds accurate to me. How can you mention the origin of the universe without a wiki-link to the Big Bang? And that article itself has a section on issues and problems, so nothing is being swept under the rug. Art Carlson (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't go too far

I have not had time to do more than watch this article out of the corner of my eye, but I had the impression that most of Aarghdvaark's edits were improving the article. I have serious reservations, though about some recent additions, in particular the sections Plasma cosmology#Joining of space plasma filaments and Plasma cosmology#Galaxy formation, active galaxy nuclei and galaxy rotation curves and the first paragraph of Plasma cosmology#Comparison to the standard model of Big Bang cosmology.

• Hi Art, I'll answer your points underneath your points. Just to explain to later readers: my answers are in italics. I'll try not to go too far! Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

To start with that last one:

• "The main difficulty though seems to be, first, the actual concept of currents flowing through the vacuum of space,": I doubt that any cosmologist or astrophysicist has a problem with this. They all know that space is not a vacuum but is filled with a (thin) plasma.

I was thinking of readers who are not cosmologists or astrophysicists. But I agree it is condescending and should be removed. The actual magnitude of the currents is probably(?) more of an issue for cosmologists and astrophysicists.

• "Plasma cosmology does away with the need for dark matter in galaxies": No it doesn't. I don't think it provides a plausible alternative to any of the observations leading to the conclusion that there is dark matter in galaxies: rotation curves, radial velocity distributions of stars, gravitational lensing, and simulations of structure formation.

You don't think it does, but proponents of plasma cosmology do claim it does away with dark matter in the cases cited (except for galaxy lensing which I haven't seen any mention of and was not in this para). Agreed it needs something like: proponents of plasma cosmology claim ...

• "and with supermassive black holes in galaxy centres": The one in the center of the Milky Way has been very well documented by observing the orbits of several nearby stars.

I got that one wrong, it was the need for supermassive black holes to power quasars and AGN that plasma cosmology researchers found unnecessary.

• "It also explains the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies, the rotation of galaxies, quasars and the evolution of galaxies.": What's to explain? These all fit well within the theories dominated by gravitation and radiation. There are also measurements of magnetic fields that show they are too small to have a significant effect.

To take the last point first, I'd included the point about measurements of magnetic fields being too small in the para you deleted! (Just a small point to show that I was being NPOV). But the more important issue is your statement "What's to explain? These all fit well within the theories dominated by gravitation and radiation". This is amazing, on the page on plasma cosmology you are saying plasma cosmology cannot claim it explains things because these things are explained by the standard theory? Please explain.

I'll remove this paragraph now, but the other sections will also have to be critically examined. Art Carlson (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC) And my answers in italic above Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

First, as you also say, there is an important difference between "It also explains ..." and proponents "claim it explains ...". Second, on some of these points there is a response from the scientific community that needs to be presented at the same time. Finally, if there is no such response, then the topic has probably not passed the threshold of notability.

Someplace in the history of this page is a version where I went to a lot of effort to address various claims by proponents of plasma cosmology from the conventional POV. Much of it was thrown overboard when Science Apologist restructured the page to concentrate on Alfven. If you insist on adding a lot of Lerner/Peratt content, it might be helpful to find that version for the references and arguments it contains, but you should also consider SA's arguments for de-emphasizing the more recent (and less notable) versions of plasma cosmology.

Art Carlson (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken account of our discussion above and rewritten the offending para. Hope this version is more balanced. I will attempt to go back through the old versions and talk pages to find what you and Science Apologist wrote.

Aarghdvaark (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Joining of space plasma filaments

This section is rather confusing, and I'm not sure it is entirely correct. Is it claiming anything more than the pinch effect is happening? The diagram gives the impression that the filaments start out running parallel and then twist up as they come together. You can't create helicity out of nothing, so there is a problem with that. If the filaments are supposed to be force-free from the beginning, then the picture is also misleading. Galaxies come in a bewildering variety of shapes, so the statement that experiments and simulations "mimic the shape of real galaxies" is rather empty if one doesn't do into quantitative detail. What is the message of this section supposed to be? Art Carlson (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In the three weeks since I made these remarks, this section has been removed with the comment that it was "poorly sourced" and reinstated without comment. One paragraph has been transferred to another section, and some content on filament formation through feedback on the resistivity has been added. None of this addresses the problem I outlined here, which are not the only problems with this section. I will remove the section. If anyone thinks it is an essential part of the article, please explain why here before putting it back in, and explain how you think we can solve the problems. Art Carlson (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well there's a lot to read here. But the reintroduction of the section was explained. It's all below, but I'll paste it here too:

The "entire uncited section about the behavior of Birkeland currents which may be true but hasn't been established as relevant to plasma cosmology" was actually cited and Birkeland currents are clearly relevant to plasma cosmology. That's why I have replaced that section. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

and

I was going to find a citation to state that Birkeland currents are relevant to plasma cosmology, but on rereading the article it actually says "Alfvén hypothesized that Birkeland currents ... were responsible for many filamentary structures ...". I don't think another citation is needed, but if you think it is, please just add the citation to Alfven's work. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we are in danger of forgetting Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which should be explaining things to readers who are new to the subject, and not just a game of ping-pong where people bat citatations back and forth across an article. The section concerned is an attempt at explaining something which is clearly of importance to plasma cosmology. It is sourced. But obviously you won't find a simple explanation of something so basic in a modern academic journal. I have reinserted the section because I've explained here why I'm putting it back, as I did the first time I put it back.

You say above "None of this addresses the problem I outlined here"; actually the section had been modified to do that in part, as:

• the bit about "You can't create helicity out of nothing, so there is a problem with that" has been addressed with a quote from Perrat.
• and "the statement that experiments and simulations "mimic the shape of real galaxies" is rather empty if one doesn't do into quantitative detail", has been addressed because that sentence has been removed from the section. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The history says the section was restored by Tomtomn00. Is that your second account?

I am not so much concerned about finding citations as about the fact that this section is (1) confusing, (2) probably wrong in points, and (3) of unclear purpose. I am aware that plasma cosmologists like Birkeland currents and invoke them whenever they think they see a filamentary structure. In that context it may be helpful to point out that current-carrying plasmas have a tendency to form filaments due to Pinch (plasma physics). What else do readers, especially "readers who are new to the subject", need to know about current filaments?

Addressing the questionable accuracy:

• Helicity has nothing to do with angular momentum. It is the twist or topological linkage of (field-aligned) currents. Apart from the fact that it doesn't address this particular problem, Perrat's statement doesn't make any sense. A torque produces angular momentum, it doesn't "convert" linear momentum into angular momentum. If this section is based on Perrat's paper, then it is no wonder that it is confusing, because the paper is also confusing. As far as I can tell, the paper does not address the question of whether the simulation conserves angular momentum. The illustration in the article show two filaments winding around each other. Perrat's filaments do not do that and cannot do that because he only simulates a thin slice.
• If a filament carries an "enormous currents" after it forms from smaller filaments, then those filaments must already have carried this "enormous current" before combining. (Has been deleted. Art Carlson (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC))
• "as the filaments move towards each other, the original (or background) external magnetic field and the motion interact to cause a current across the filaments" Is this referring to the minimal charge separation of a plasma moving in a magnetic field? the current that is almost immediately stopped by the electric field it produces?
• "Using Fleming's right-hand rule again, the filament motion interacts with the circular magnetic field surrounding the other filament, causing a secondary current to flow at the filament edges, in the opposite direction to the main current (not surprising ..." I can't tell whether this is surprising or not because I can't understand it.
• "Since the electrons move much faster than the protons, the current profile across the filaments will be unbalanced" If this is referring to the ExB drift, then that is the same for electrons and ions. If it is referring to the motion along the field, then it will produce no charge separation.
• "the repulsive force from the like charges on the inner surfaces of the filaments" I haven't figured out why there should be an excess charge on the inner surfaces, but if there is, why doesn't it just cause a further redistribution of the charge?
• "The two filaments become twisted together into a rotating double filament" There are processes which can change the helicity (twist) of the currents, but none of them has been introduced here.
• The effect of concentration due to resistivity feedback exists, but it is not the effect commonly called a pinch, and it does not produce a concentration of mass. I have never seen any claim that the resistivity effect is important in plasma cosmology.

I don't think these problems can be fixed, at least not without a complete rewrite, and I still think the section does not belong here anyway. Art Carlson (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read things before you delete them! This happened last time you deleted the section, saying nothing had changed, when you didn't spot things which I had changed in line with your suggestions. This time please note there was no reference to "enormous currents" in the section you deleted. Also, this is not original work by me but follows the explanation in Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened" (it is given as a reference in the section, but the actual pages are pp. 234 - 237 "How a galaxy forms"). It is in my own words as per Wikipedia policy. So I think all of the other issues you raise above are irrelevant in that you are disputing an explanation that someone has written in a cited published book and journal article. That you don't think these problems can be fixed is original work by you. It is considered of fundamental importance by Alfven, Lerner and Peratt, so I think that demonstrates it is clearly of fundamental importance in plasma cosmology. For those reasons I am reinstating the section.

In one of our earlier exchanges you said "the actual concept of currents flowing through the vacuum of space,": I doubt that any cosmologist or astrophysicist has a problem with this. They all know that space is not a vacuum but is filled with a (thin) plasma". Having read around the subject further I have learnt that until 1967 - just two years before Apollo 11 landed on the moon - most cosmologists and astrophysicists actually did not believe this! But that is an aside, the main point I wanted to make is the assumption you are making that this article is aimed at cosmologists and astrophysicists, whereas it should be aimed at the general reader. Explanations are important for the general reader, and there are enough Wikilinks in the section to enable people to follow the description I hope; if not I'm sure another editor will work it out and phrase it in a way which is more comprehensible. And in answer to your question, no, I am not User:Tomtomn00. Aarghdvaark (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because someone publishes something doesn't mean we can report it as fact. I am arguing on the basis of standard plasma physics that this section, as it is currently written and to the extent that it can be understood at all, is substantially wrong. If you believe it is consensus knowledge, then you should be able either to argue from other established results that it is true, or to cite other secondary sources besides Lerner.

I am well aware that we are not writing for experts, and it is bizarre that you are using that as an argument to include incomprehensible and false content. If I, as a bone fide expert in plasma physics, can't follow the argument, how do you expect the general reader to follow it?

This section is

• incomprehensible,
• contains statements at odds with standard plasma physics, and
• is not based on secondary or tertiary sources.

When you can write a section that overcomes all three of these problems and also tells the reader something new and important about the subject, then you are welcome to add it. (It should not be too hard to rescue the new first paragraph.) Until then, it has no place in Wikipedia. Art Carlson (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You ask "If I, as a bone fide expert in plasma physics, can't follow the argument, how do you expect the general reader to follow it?" It is possibly because you are such an expert that you cannot accept a simple argument. I admit it is abbreviated so as not to be over long, but I think it is correct and explains the pinching together of the filaments in terms of the simple rules of electromagnetism. This is not the way you personally would normally see these things explained, and you would probably prefer a more mathematical approach, but it was not written for experts in plasma physics.

I certainly do not insist on a mathematical argument. In fact I often have more confidence in non-mathematical arguments like thinking of magnetic fields as having pressure in the transverse direction and tension in the parallel direction. If you think you understand it, why don't you just answer the questions I raised? If you do, that will bring a peaceable end to an incipient edit war. If you can't, then you're only talking the talk. Art Carlson (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You say it "contains statements at odds with standard plasma physics". We have established that this is a fringe theory, so by definition of course it does.

If you said "Lerner said this" and Perrat said that", that would be better, but your text is stating these things as facts. Art Carlson (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You say it "is not based on secondary or tertiary sources". It contains two direct references. Anything more is getting ridiculous.

Read WP:PSTS. The point is that your explanation of how current filaments merge is based on Lerner. Lerner is a primary source. He is an authority only on what he himself believes. For topics like the pinch effect and merging of fields and currents, textbooks and review papers are the proper sources. Art Carlson (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• You are insisting on me doing original research. I am not going to do this, firstly because I am not your PhD student, secondly it is an obvious trap as it would leave the section open to being deleted because of WP:OR. I am therefore reverting the deletion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea I want you to do original research? I want you to stop writing as if everything Lerner says is true, and I want you to get it right when you are explaining physics. I'm not sure how much of what you wrote is actually wrong. The bigger problem is that it is incomprehensible.

I don't know what the "therefore" in your final sentence refers to. If you leave the deletion alone, you are not doing OR, and you are not falling into any traps.

Respond to the objections raised, or I will remove the babble again. Art Carlson (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Really? This is my only account (other than User:Tomtomn00 Bot I [bot], User:TomNVandBot [bot] and User:Sir Tommy [doppelganger]). I reverted the edits as content blanking, nothing else — using popups, and was unable to see the edit summary. Also, the edit summaries at the time gave me no sign of what the IP was trying to do, and did not link to the talk page until the final one. Also, my editing times are different to Aarghdvaark's, as I am from England, not Australia, and spend my day (8:30-3:55) at school, unless it is a half term, holiday or weekend — which it is not. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange that Aarghdvaark talked about "the first time I [Aarghdvaark] put it back" when you were the one who did it. I do think it is rather dangerous to be reverting edits without reading the edit summaries first. Art Carlson (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC) (P.S. Aarghdvaark does say he "lives in" England, even though he "comes from" Australia.)

I've added a bit to say the explanation is based on Lerner's work. It is, but I don't really know why I need to do this, because, even though you obviously disagree with what he says about plasma cosmology, he is a world class plasma physicist. His explanations of plasma effects will therefore be more reliable than yours, taking into account he was trying to explain the effect to a lay reader. I suppose we can all then take what we want from the piece: people who trust Lerner will accept it, people who don't won't. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This section isn't really about plasma cosmology, it's about the physics of merging current filaments, apparently in the force-free (j parallel to B) limit. I still insist, even if Lerner understands how filaments merge, if the process can't be explained in a way that can be understood, putting in his explanation makes the article worse, not better. If you are taking the position that it can be understood, then just show it by responding to my objections. Art Carlson (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted as blanking, nothing else. Thanks! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 18:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you're applying the right policy? That one is only for WP:User pages. Art Carlson (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Link fixed. Thanks for telling me! --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course, that one's mostly about blanking entire pages. The policy on WP:Section blanking is neither as clear nor as strict. In this case I had already expressed some severe criticisms of the section on the Talk page, although it would not have been easy for you to make the connection. Anyway, no problem. Art Carlson (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Art Carlson. I can't make any sense of that section (I'm a professional physicist, but not a plasma physicist). It sounds simply wrong, but perhaps it's just badly written. In any case, if it's supported by reliable secondary sources those might provide a clearer exposition, and if it isn't it shouldn't stay there. Waleswatcher (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think we've found one reason why you guys are so dead set against plasma cosmology, but then as you say it could just be my description! Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep the conversation to the section at issue. The explanation given was almost incomprehensible, and what wasn't incomprehensible sounded wrong. Again, that might be a problem with writing, and given some reliable secondary sources I'm sure we can re-write it to fix the problem. If there aren't any reliable secondary sources, the section cannot remain in anything like that form. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

failed verification of Alfven quote

The article asserts: "Alfvén's view of plasma's role in the universe differs from the standard view. Chief among these is his assertion that electromagnetic forces are at least as important as gravity not only for star systems, but, beyond that, for galaxies and even to the largest distance scales."

But the quote given says something totally different: "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10-4 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the [ratio of the magnetic force to the force of gravity] ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized."

No mention of galaxies, let alone "the largest distance scales". No mention of stars or star systems. I'm going to wait a few days, but unless there's a direct quote from Alfven explicitly stating the (patently absurd) idea that EM forces are relevant to the orbits or motion of stars, that is going to be removed. I did a partial search of that reference (Alfven's book), and found nothing remotely like that. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The ref was not about stellar orbits. Indeed plasma effects do not replace gravitational forces in orbital dynamics, but they should be considered alongside gravity in e.g. stellar formation (as indeed they now are, but weren't when Alfven wrote this). You are right though that it should actually be earlier in the sentence, since it refers to stars not galaxies - I'll move it. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It's still very misleading. That section strongly implies that Alfven believed EM forces were relevant for orbits, especially because it ends with the (absurd) claim that plasma has something to do with rotation curves. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology claims it can explain flat galaxy rotation curves. Alfven didn't claim that, because the problem (for mainstream cosmology) about flat rotation curves only became apparent in 1980 with Rubin, and it was the plasma simulations by Perrat from 1983 on which showed a flat rotation curve emerged in galaxy evolution if EM forces were considered. In a steady state system like the solar system now, EM forces will have negligible effect on orbits (as you point out a star or planet is not a charged particle). However, when forming from plasma then EM forces are significant (at least that's the claim by plasma cosmologists), and they are important when a star is forming according to mainstream theory. The section (Astrophysical plasma) says "He asserted that electromagnetic forces are as important as gravity when acting on interplanetary and interstellar charged particles". The bit about charged particles is key, without it you would be right to say that Alfven believed EM forces were relevant for orbits, but with it he is talking about plasmas. Aarghdvaark (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If Alfven didn't believe (or never said) that EM forces are important for orbits like galaxy rotation curves, then the article needs to be very clear on that. The way it was written implied the opposite. It seems to me that Alfven's views were a lot closer to mainstream than those of people like Perrat, and if so, the article should separate them cleanly. (I could be wrong about that, but if so there need to be specific quotes that show clearly what he thought.) Waleswatcher (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Old stuff

As promised in the section above ("Don't go too far"), I've been digging around in the basement - it's not pleasant. The suggestion was I should "consider SA's arguments for de-emphasizing the more recent (and less notable) versions of plasma cosmology". I think this is found at Talk:Plasma cosmology/Archive 8#New focus for the article.

The initial proposal by Science Apologist started off:

Here is the my new proposed outline:

• Lead
• Plasma astrophysics (connections to the mainstream)
• History of plasma cosmology

• Alfven,Klein ambiplasma
• 1980s/90s Lerner/Perrat publications

• Critique and comparison to mainstream

I anticipate removing most of the text regarding the specifics of Lerner and Peratt's ideas as they are not notable for this encyclopedia ... Science Apologist

Note that 'Plasma astrophysics' here seems to mean something other than plasma cosmology, in that plasma astrophysics is now mainstream so it cannot be plasma cosmology. There was an old debate on what plasma cosmology should be about. The current article says "Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces". Which I think is accurate as a short summary (I don't agree with that definition but that is neither here nor there). In the old debate it was noted that:

Any definition of Plasma Cosmology must be based on verifiable reliable sources. Hannnes Alfvné's paper "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) notes (edited for format):

"The basic aspects of cosmological importance are:

• (1) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere;
• (2) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma;
• (3) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and
• (4) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic plasma evolves." (Full paper here) (1990)

Which is a bit too detailed, but the main point from this is that plasma cosmology is not just ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology, which is the same point that some contributors made at the time in opposition to SA. Neither ambiplasma or Alfvén-Klein cosmology are actively supported any more, so to equate plasma cosmology with either of them would then mean it could be disregarded since no-one actively supported it anymore. But I think plasma cosmology means that electrodynamic forces need to be considered as much as gravity, at all levels on the cosmic hierarchy. Note this is different from the actual definition, but the definition we use needs to be sourced from plasma cosmologists. I think the consequence of this is that Perrats's work should be brought forward and mentioned in a separate section rather than in a history section alongside ambiplasma. To remove the newer stuff would mean that plasma cosmology was an obsolete theory because it had no new stuff. I think the present structure is OK? Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes you found - thank you very much - the point where the article took a new turn. I'm not sure when the change occurred exactly, but the version from 2006 December 15 certainly has most of the (old) content I was referring to. For example concerning Peratt's galaxy formation simulations. They are laughably naive by today's standards. To start with, they are essentially 2-D. Worse is that they are pure plasma. He may obtain a flat plasma rotation curve, but the Galaxy rotation problem concerns the velocities of the stars. Probably thousands of papers have been published in the last 20 years on quasars and the formation of galaxies, and they all ignore Peratt. Neither he nor Lerner nor anyone else ever picked up this work again. Why does it deserve to even be mentioned? Art Carlson (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

failed verification of Alfven quote two

The article states " Ionized gases, or plasmas, play the central part in plasma cosmology's explanation for the development of the universe, which is thus dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces." Nothing in reference 4 supports this - it never mentions forces at all, and it attributes gravity a very important role.

Later in the lead, the article asserts: "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity, explains the origin and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales, relying instead on the further development and application of classical mechanics and electrodynamics to astrophysical plasmas." This must be cited, and appears to directly contradict reference 4. Waleswatcher (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

(N.B. the quotes are in the introduction section). Ref [4] is Alfven, Hannes O. G., (1990) "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition", which talks about electric fields and currents and cosmic plasma. The force which underpins plasma physics is electromagnetism. Classical electromagnetism is the wiki article which explains the theory and that supports the bit about the "application of classical mechanics and electrodynamics to astrophysical plasmas" (this article on plasma cosmology is quite old and it uses the older term electrodynamics). The ref supports the idea that plasma is central because its introduction section is all about plasma phenomena. A direct quote is "If they [plasma phenomena] are taken into account, not only interplanetary but interstellar and intergalactic space must have a cellular structure", so that supports the bit about cosmic scales too. I think there's only a small bit about gravity, mostly the article is about ambiplasma and Alfvén-Klein cosmology. The statements in the article are paraphrasing what plasma cosmology is about, because there isn't a good quote available (unless anyone knows of one?).

The second quote really says the same as the first, but just emphasises that PC has nothing to do with general relativity. This was emphasised because of the need to warn the casual reader that PC is not mainstream science (in line with wiki policy on WP:UNDUE I think, "pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint"). As the article says, it contradicted the big bang in 1965. But I actually think you are right here and that PC does not now contradict general relativity, it complements it. However, I don't want to change this wording because that is just my opinion. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot make a statement like "dominated largely by electrodynamic forces rather than gravitational forces" in a wiki article without a supporting source. There's nothing even close in the cited article. I'll give you some time to find another one, but if one doesn't appear, I'm going to remove/edit it.

"emphasises that PC has nothing to do with general relativity." - again, I think the article needs to clearly separate what Alfven thought from what others thought or think. I very much doubt Alfven agreed with much of what is written here, but I'm happy to be proved wrong with quotes. In any case, the statement "Plasma cosmology contradicts the current consensus of astrophysicists that Einstein's theory of general relativity, a theory of gravity, explains the origin and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales, relying instead on the further development and application of classical mechanics and electrodynamics to astrophysical plasmas" clearly needs a citation. Perrat would probably suffice - but then it needs to make clear that's Perrat's opinion, not Alfven's. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are making the assumption I wrote everything in this article. I didn't, I just cleaned up the first bits. Anyway, nobody owns anything in wikipedia. I added the bit about general relativity being a theory of gravity for the benefit of a lay reader, but otherwise those quotes are from before. Please do go ahead and explain what PC is if you are not happy with what is written. But it is not easy, bearing in mind you have to balance readability with WP:UNDUE with an accurate precis of what it is all about (a quote would be great, but it'll be hard to find). Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough - you're correct I was assuming you wrote the lead and some other sections. I apologize for the unwarranted assumption. I completely agree that it's hard to write this article, because the topic is both vague, and fringe except where it's subsumed into standard plasma physics. Still, AFAIK wiki can have articles on fringe science, just so long as they're written so as to make clear that such theories aren't accepted.

One of the arguments for PC is that Alfven was such a great scientist. But what I've read of Alfven's writings doesn't actually support the so-called central claims of PC. So I'm particularly sensitive to making sure Alfven's views are accurately represented and differentiated from those of others. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Good edits! It's more readable, separates out Alfven's contributions as you wanted, and IMHO it is accurate and balanced. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology linking - and fringe science

There's been a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Plasma_cosmology_linking on fringe science and plasma cosmology. Fringe science can cover a lot of things, but I think the conclusion reached is that whilst plasma cosmology is fringe science, it is fringe science in the narrow sense of the term, i.e. valid but non-mainstream science. Aarghdvaark (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like splitting a pretty fine hair. No one is saying it's totally non-scientific (like astrology or theology, say). They're just saying it's fringe, precisely in the sense that it's very much ignored and discounted by the mainstream. Is it "valid"? That's a much more tricky and ill-defined question, and I don't think it has one answer. I'd say much of it isn't, but because it's so vaguely defined and broad, parts of it are.

Anyway, who cares? No one is proposing deleting the article, and it's abundantly clear that mainstream articles on astronomy should not link to this one except under special circumstances. So, what's at issue? Waleswatcher (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

"precisely in the sense that it's very much ignored and discounted by the mainstream." Please see this image: http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/165973_430861300268220_17018721_n.jpg. As it stands, its a hell of an improvement compared to the awful censorship that the Big Bang theory Zealots had imposed before here. However, the situation with banning Lerner, who Alfven himself supported and said he enjoyed the theories he developed based on his epistemically unique approach to cosmology, is an abomination. I would be like banning Steven Hawkins from editing the page on the more Exotic properties of black holes as "This material has yet to be verified by the scientific community, is in contrast with previous theories and has not gained significant attention yet". Scientific popularity, recognition or ignorance of a theory says nothing about its veracity.

I have listed before here the papers by Lerner and others that should be allowed here. There are over 20 papers published in reputable astronomy journals that are missing from this page, and not a single peer reviewed refutation of the models has been proposed to date. 

In fact, most modern references to some of Lerner and Peratts ideas seem to now be getting supportive citations in the literature, as people have begun to realize that cosmology as a science needs fresh ideas and to seriously consider more seriously some of these older theories. A lot of people are getting bored with the dead of of BBT, which as it stands has ended up merely tying up loose ends in theories, re-fining decimal point accuracies, and some are getting fed up of the fact that many observations now actually totally contradict the original predictions that it was predicated on. Thus, its predictive power has faded to nothing.

Would you like a list of all publications I think are noteworthy of inclusion? Or does the fact that there are no refutations of them yet anger you too much for me to be allowed to list them, like last time when you deleted them? If so, who ever is moderating this page deserves to be sacked, and actual qualified scientists that actually developed and published the theories in question should be unbanned. This page is in need of an Expert, as stated above. And the mosy prominent once alive today that could explain it best is bannned :( {{{AdamNailor}}}

Sorry for above comments, I thought I was speaking to science appologist, who has been very unfair to me in the past (he is one of the Big Bang Zealots I mentioned above, from my POV), no offense intended. Is he banned now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNailor (talk • contribs) 07:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

heavy and light ambiplasma

I was about to revert this edit by Aarghdvaark on the grounds that it didn't make any sense. Then I realized the original paragraph didn't make any sense either. What did Alfven (or Klein) actually say? (Or has this section been polluted by Lerner?) ... Checking the history, I see that it was actually Aarghdvaark who first changed the paragraph. I will revert to the Revision as of 09:19, 2012 April 15. Some of the edits made since then might be good, but I'm not sure the result would be coherent if I only change one part.

The version I am reverting from is this:

The idea of ambiplasma was developed further into the forms of heavy ambiplasma (protons-antiprotons) and light ambiplasma (electrons-positrons). Normally electrons and protons (similarly positrons and antiprotons) are difficult to separate because they are oppositely charged and attract each other, forming an atom of the element hydrogen (similarly antihydrogen). Atoms such as hydrogen have no charge because the electron is in a state of quantum superposition completely shielding and balancing the charge of the proton. But light and heavy ambiplasma being electrically neutral allows gravity to separate them by mass. Once separated by mass, atoms cannot be formed and the charges are easier to separate by a magnetic field, thus allowing matter and antimatter to be separated out from a mixture.

My concerns include these points:

• The components of an ambiplasma also have opposing charges and can form atoms (see positronium).

Good call. I agree with what you say about separating heavy and light ambiplasma not making sense, but just for info I've added in italics these comments to your points. Aarghdvaark (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Quantum superposition is a more complex phenomenon that doesn't have much to do with simple atomic states, and even less to do with electrostatic shielding.

Electrostatic shielding is to do with wire mesh and Faraday cages, etc. it's basically to do with earthing. How a point source electron screens the proton is that it is not just in a 'planetary' orbit around the proton - which I think is easiest explained by quantum superposition.

• Gravity accelerates all particles at the same rate. How can gravity separate heavy ambiplasma from light ambiplasma?

Apparently sufficient collisions are needed to equalize the energy of the heavier and lighter particles, which would mean the velocity of the heavier and lighter particles would end up different. Mind you, I think collisions would be a bad idea with matter and antimatter.

• At any density high enough to meet the definition of plasma, any attempt to separate charges using a magnetic field will only shift the clouds relative to each other by a few Debye lengths.

Art Carlson (talk) 07:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There were other good edits in there (not just the para above) and I can't sort them out. So I'll revert the edit and then excise the offending bits on ambiplasma. Aarghdvaark (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. I think this is better? And yes, the explanation for separating heavy and light ambiplasma was from Lerner and never made much sense to me, which is why I went back to it. But as you point out it still didn't make sense. Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)