@Yonni why would you take an interest in science if not for marvelling?
@Draug will comment after my break :)

@Draug okay. Let's do this.

@red - Let's do what? I have no authority to start a Man on Mars or Lunar Base program. Nor do I have the money to do it. Now, if you have the funds, I'll be happy to help recruit th right people and get it done. :-)

Yeah. Little short on cash myself but +1 all the same.

@red

I'll freely admit I didn't understand it in full, but I suppose that's to be expected when listening to a Physics Nobel Laureate. : )

Basically, he wants to use hyper-dilute cold atoms for simulation purposes. The reasoning being, when things are dilute and cold, they are much easier to obtain exact equations for. Specifically, he's looking at ferromagnetics and how to arrange particles by spin on an atom-by-atom basis.

He showed some models that indicated good results; however, he couldn't test yet because he doesn't have a method for making the atoms cold enough.

He then went into adiabatic demagnetization cooling, at which point he completely lost me. But, he claims he can get atoms down to 350 pK, which is a new record. Hopefully, at this temp, he'll be able to verify the results of his model experimentally.

So, a bit complicated, but it fit so well into our conversation earlier that I just had to mention it.

Hmm...
How about the Arrhenius parameter A in liquid systems did he say anything about that? ;)

I am up for debate on a topic of importance to the entirety of science. It is about the Standard Model of Cosmology. I will try to aim this debate by a series of simple questions so that others who have not as much science background can participate or at least follow along alright. The first question. Do you agree or disagree that the universe (for as much of it that we can observe) is made up of approximately 99.99% plasma?

Do you mean 99+% of all matter is plasma? I can't say, but I would think 99+% of the universe is a vacuum.

But vacuum is not matter.

right, that's your point. sorry. carry on.

Yes, thank you. The question more properly put is "Do you agree that over 99% of all matter in the universe is plasma?" It is my understanding that this is not a contraversial statement by professional scientists. So in order for me to ask the second question I want to establish that answer to the first is, yes. Is that sensible?

I have no experience in cosmology, but I think this will be an interesting conversation to follow along to.

Is 99% plasma coming from stars? Or, something else?

Well, my goal is to get to a simple evidenced based statement that is in direct conflict with the fundamental assumptions underlying the Standard Model of Cosmology (astronomy). And then try to challenge someone to disprove the statement. For until my statement is disproven, the Standard Model has no valid foundation and should be discarded for a different model, of which I would then offer up for discussion.

Yes, I think that the evidence for this assertion of the primacy of plasma is due mostly to the consistent observation that stars are basically big balls of plasma, but also that the ultra low density spread of particles in the "vacuum" of space is also almost all plasma. It would seem that non ionized atoms tend to be concentrated in objects such as planets, moons, asteroids, and other such massive non-star objects but that these object make up less than 0.01% of the mass of what we observe in the sky.

Alright, I'm willing to agree with your 1st statement, although we may need to come back to it if you actually use it to disprove the Standard Model : )

So let me cut to the chase and put forward the statement as see what ya'll think. Now when I say the universe I am referring to all of its contents, not its emptiness. You will get no debate form me asserting anything other than, by far, most of the universe, is emptiness. Here is the statement:

If the universe is made up of more than 99% plasma, then the driving force of the evolution of everything in the universe is the electro-magnetic force (EM), because plasma is more susceptible to this force than it is to gravity by a factor of usually more than 10 to the power of 20 times.

That is the statement. Why does it fundamentally conflict with the standard model? Because the standard model assumes that only gravity is the driving force in the evolution of stars, galaxies and such. It does not take into account EM forces that must exist between charged particles of plasma. The standard model is the attempt to describe the evolution of the universe by using such mathematical gravity only creations as black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, fusion in the center of suns, and the big bang itself to describe the universe.

I am not the inventor of this. I am merely a "convert", if you will. So I claim no special propriety to this argument.

oh boy

I really don't know enough to comment on that.

Ok, to illustrate the power of EM versus Gravity. I can easily defy the entire force of gravity between the earth and any metal object, say a nail for example with a small kitchen refrigerator magnet. My intent is not try to make this a physics phd only argument. I only have a physics bachelors so I don't claim status as a trained professional scientist. I can claim trained amateur scientist status as I am a simple high school physics and math teacher. I think that most people should be able to access the logical argument my statement puts forward, though. So long as my IF, THEN, BECAUSE continues to be shown correct by evidence; the foundation of the entire theory of modern cosmology is baseless. The standard model ignores half of what we know in physics which is the EM force. What has continuously dismayed me about establishment physics is that there are way way too many "geniuses" basically being idiots and supporting this obviously failed theory. Stephen Hawking is one of the most well known examples of this type of "genius". Einstein himself said that the general theory of relativity was incomplete. But that didn't stop the mathematical theoretical physicists from inventing what are now household words, black holes, big bang, fusion bomb stars out of mathematical formulaic fantasy. There is no direct evidence for any of these things.

@Meher

I do not think we can have an intelligent conversation about the Standard Model with a HS level understanding of physics.


Take Quantum Mechanics. With a HS level of understanding (Classical Mechanics) you are never, never going to understand QM.

Now, with that being said, you've intrigued me, so I'm going to read up on SM on wiki now.

Also, why do you say we don't have direct evidence for black holes? We most certainly do.

@Meher

Can you please read the introduction to SM on wikipedia and tell me how that isn't a direct contradiction to what you are claiming. They claim they *do* take the other 3 fundamental forces into account...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

@Meher

I must admit, you've greatly confused me. You claim:
"The standard model ignores half of what we know in physics which is the EM force."

According to wiki:
"The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles."

So, what exactly is the problem here?

"There is no direct evidence for any of these things."

Well, of course there's no *direct* evidence, but there is a lot of evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Observational_evidence

I am sorry, I don't think you misunderstood me. I have been to college. I have taken QM as an undergrad while finishing my bachelors in physics. I understand the basic of concepts on QM along with most all the other basic concepts of physics at an undergrad level. I have to teach them (not learn them) at a high school level. I am 40 years old. LOL!

Wait! I just looked up your link. I think we are talking about two different things. I am not talking about the standard model of particle physics. I am talking about the standard model of cosmology, which is admittedly an informal name.The "standard model of cosmology" is actually a hodge podge of stuff that doesn't have one formal name as far as I am aware.

Look up "Standard model (disambiguation)" on wikipedia to get the difference.

And no, there is no direct evidence of Black Holes. Has a black hole ever been seen? No. Thus all evidence is circumstantial and there is a great theory created by noble prize winners that has alternative EM-plasma based explanations for all of the circumstantial evidence used to "prove" black holes exist. It is the new paradigm shift in cosmology and it has been around for almost as long the gravity only model yet systematically ignored by astronomers who are almost never trained in plasma physics. The field of study is called Plasma Cosmology.

@ abgemacht
Sorry I will use the @ from now on. I am new to this forum and I usually don't participate in forums, but I figure, hey I love diplomacy so why not chat? :)

@abgemacht
the Standard Solar Model would be a part of what I would term the standard model of cosmology.

@Meher

First, I wasn't accusing *you* of not understanding QM. I was just saying that *anyone* could not have an intelligent conversation about QM with a HS education.


OK, I had never heard of "standard model" be used for anything besides the link I've shown you. Can we please call what you're referring to something else because I think using "standard model" is horribly confusing.


I will look into this Plasma Cosmology and get back to you.

@ It's all good, bro. We are just sorting things out so we can have a conversation using a common basis for communicating. If you plug in "Standard Model of Cosmology" in Wikipeida you will find it is referenced often within articles that deal with cosmological issues.

@Meher

As I've said, I have a very limited understanding of cosmology, but my basic understanding seems to be this:

When things are large and far away, gravity is the most important force acting on them. Do we agree?

Now this isn't to say that the strong/weak forces aren't there, just that they aren't important.

You seem to be claiming that EM is just as (or more important) than gravity for large systems. Why?


Also, if I may hijack this conversation, I'd really like to hear form you about something:

This semester, I'm TAing a course and really love it. If possible, I'd like to get a job that involves teaching of some form after I finish my Masters. Naturally, PhD comes to mind to teach at the university level. However, I'm not convinced I really want to do doctoral-level research. Another option would be to teach HS; however, I'm concerned it would be less than fulfilling after a few years. If you're willing, I'd love to hear about your thoughts as a science/math teacher.

@ agemacht
I would disagree with the assertion that gravity rules things far away from each other, here is why. The gravity force and the coulomb force are both inverse square laws. And thus their magnitudes would diminish by the same factor over any equivalent distance. A great example of of EM operating in space are what are called Birkland currents check them out they are frickin' cool and beautiful! It is interesting that when the current gravity only cosmological models are changed to include EM that they no longer require invented things like dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars. None of these things are required anymore to make the theory work really well and so the combined theory, if you will, is so much more elegant and simple really than the what is currently a frankenstein model IMO.

Anyway, enough of that silliness. I am happy to talk about my choice of being a teacher and why it is the best choice I ever made for me. But I will post that in a new message here. Cheers,

Ok, now the prospect of teaching in America, I am originally from Oregon, was not appealing to me. And I was resistant to the idea for a long time, until I moved overseas. I love adventure and travel and learning about new peoples and cultures as much or more than I do working as a teacher. By being an International School teaching I get the best of both worlds. 1) I don't have to teach in the mess that is the American public school system. That would stress me out and I would already have grey hairs by now. I did teach one year in the States and I have to say I hope it is my last. 2) The students I teach in the international school are awesome in comparison. They want to be there, they want to learn, and they are, in general, highly motivated to succeed. So my experience as a teacher is incredibly rich and satisfying in an international school overseas. I feel motivated to go to work everyday knowing that I will have opportunity to assist bright eyed and eager kids to gain knowledge. It is truly a joy for me. 3) I literally earn the same amount of salary in US dollars teaching overseas as I would teaching in say, Texas. Actually I am making about 10% more and I can literally save half my money every month. HALF!!! That is like 1500 to 2000 dollars a month I can potentially save if I didn't party and travel and party and party more. I am getting older now so I don't have the same urges as I had as a young buck. 4) I get about 14 weeks vacation every year. Yeh, let me say that again. 14 WEEKS. That means that since I can save lots of saved money every month, I can then use some of it to travel the region of the world I am currently living in. 5) It is standard for teachers teaching overseas to sign a two year contract and many after two years will move on to another teaching job in another country. And thus after says 20 years of doing this, they can effectively travel the world and make a living while they are able to save plenty of money for retirement. (again unless they party only like physics students know how to party! ) 6) Job security now it may seem strange to say but there is great job security as an international school teacher in my opinion. Particularly for Science and Math teachers. There is almost guaranteed to be plenty of schools always looking for good math and science teachers all over the world as these teachers are the hardest to come by in any country. So I will always have a job and if it doesn't work out at one school, I am confident I can find a new job in short order. 7) I have two kids and they are getting the best education possible in the safest environment possible and that seals the deal for me as most international schools will have some kind of benefit for kids of teachers. The school I work in now my kids go for lass than 10% of the cost of a normal student and so it is very easy for my to afford that minor cost.

I could go on and on. I feel a great sense of independence as an international school teacher. I am not tied to a single location and I can be if I choose, which is my case as I want my kids to go to one school. Once they graduate, I will do the roaming teaching bit. If there is significant local trouble...just go somewhere else! It is that simple. I am free to be a truly international citizen who is treated with great respect in most places. And certainly treated with much greater respect than school teachers are treated in America or the UK or Aussie or NewZee.

For me teaching is not the ultimate job....teaching overseas is the ultimate job. I will never be rich, but I will never be poor and I will be much richer than most other professional overseas workers as I get 14 WEEKS OF VACATION EVERY YEAR. Which basically mean to me that I won't have to ever really retire since I have enough down time each year to keep my batteries fully charged, so to speak.

Ok, ok enough. If you have any questions please ask away. I feel I discovered the secret gold star career and I will teach probably till I die or thereabouts.