Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space News

Supernova 1987A Decoded 629

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the yes-but-when-can-we-visit dept.
bluevector writes "Electric Universe News is reporting that scientists claim to have proof that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star' and not the result of giant stars undergoing gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of their nuclear fuel as previously thought."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supernova 1987A Decoded More

Supernova 1987A Decoded

Comments Filter:
  • Come on this is big news and I'm an astronomy student help me out here.

    • Re:Can I get a link please? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:17AM (#13487909)
      The news is almost certainly at http://www.holoscience.com/ [holoscience.com], which is currently Slashdotted in spite of there being no link. Electric Universe proponents are generally considered to be crackpots by the wider astronomy community, but who knows - they may be on to something.

  • April fools? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jazzman75 ( 637691 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:05AM (#13487855)
    Is this April 1? I'm so confused.

  • I for one... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Welcome our new electric overlords
  • having trouble buying this with no fa, especially since it seems to go against all current astronomical data regarding supernovae.

    so... does it run linux?

  • and here is a useful article on the subject (Score:4, Informative)

    by exekewtable ( 130076 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:05AM (#13487862)
    Supernova 1987A Decoded [holoscience.com]

    • Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Informative)

      by a.different.perspect ( 817184 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:17AM (#13487906) Journal
      24 August 2005 Supernova 1987A Decoded

      Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. Close observation since 1987 has now provided proof that supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star.

      >> IMAGE CAPTION: The enigmatic and beautiful structure of SN1987A with its three axial rings. The brightening of the equatorial ring is obvious. The two bright stars are just in the field of view and are not associated with the supernova.

      A supernova is one of the most energetic events witnessed in the universe. The accepted explanation is that it occurs at the end of a star's lifetime, or red giant stage, when the star's nuclear fuel is exhausted. There is no more release of nuclear energy in the core so the huge star collapses in on itself. If sufficiently massive, the imploding layers of the star are thought to rebound when they hit the core, resulting in an explosion, and the blast wave ejects the star's envelope into interstellar space. The bright equatorial ring is caused by the collision of exploded matter from the star with the remnants of an earlier stellar "wind." The two faint rings are a problem. The best that theorists have been able to manage is to postulate some kind of rotating beam from an assumed supernova remnant, sweeping and lighting up a shell of gas expelled at an earlier epoch. The ad hoc nature of these explanations is obvious.

      The detection of a pulsar remnant after some supernovae is explained by the implosion of the stellar core to produce a neutron star. Pulsars emit bursts of radiation up to thousands of times a second. It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse). Commonsense suggests that this mechanical model is wrong when some pulsars rev beyond the redline, even for such a bizarre object.

      A recent example of conventional thinking can be seen on the Chandra website. On August 17, a news story was posted: Supernova 1987A: Fast Forward to the Past.

      Recent Chandra observations have revealed new details about the fiery ring surrounding the stellar explosion that produced Supernova 1987A. The data give insight into the behavior of the doomed star in the years before it exploded, and indicate that the predicted spectacular brightening of the circumstellar ring has begun.. The site of the explosion was traced to the location of a blue supergiant star called Sanduleak -69Â 202 (SK -69 for short) that had a mass estimated at approximately 20 Suns.

      Subsequent optical, ultraviolet and X-ray observations have enabled astronomers to piece together the following scenario for SK -69: about ten million years ago the star formed out of a dark, dense, cloud of dust and gas; roughly a million years ago, the star lost most of its outer layers in a slowly moving stellar wind that formed a vast cloud of gas around it; before the star exploded, a high-speed wind blowing off its hot surface carved out a cavity in the cool gas cloud.

      The intense flash of ultraviolet light from the supernova illuminated the edge of this cavity to produce the bright ring seen by the Hubble Space Telescope. In the meantime the supernova explosion sent a shock wave rumbling through the cavity. In 1999, Chandra imaged this shock wave, and astronomers have waited expectantly for the shock wave to hit the edge of the cavity, where it would encounter the much denser gas deposited by the red supergiant wind, and produce a dramatic increase in X-radiation.

      The latest data from Chandra and the Hubble Space Telescope indicate that this much-anticipated event has begun. Optical hot-spots now encircle the ring like a necklace of incandescent diamonds. The Chandra image reveals multimillion-degree gas at the location

      • Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Insightful)

        by OzRoy ( 602691 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:31AM (#13487969)
        So what about heavy elements? Where were they produced if they weren't produced in massive supernovas?

        • "heavy elements" (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TapeCutter ( 624760 )
          From TFA..."Stars are an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon. Electrical energy produces heavy elements near the surface of all stars. The energy is transferred over cosmic distances via Birkeland current transmission lines. The energy may be released gradually or stored in a stellar circuit and unleashed catastrophically. It is these cosmic circuits that are the energy source for the supernova explosion not the star."

          Even if TFA was mildly belivable there is still the problem of where does all the el

          • Kristian Birkeland (Score:3, Informative)

            by leonbrooks ( 8043 )
            This appears to be the Birkeland in question [wikipedia.org]. Nobel Prize nominee seven times, figured out how the polar aurorae worked, invented the gadget we use to manufacture nitrate fertiliser, and so ons.

            • Forgot to mention... (Score:3, Informative)

              by leonbrooks ( 8043 )
              ...that article links to a description of Birkeland currents [wikipedia.org], which might give you a big tip about what the relatively coherent parts of the article are on alluding to. If Earth's Birkeland currents routinely hit a million amperes, can you imagine what the Sun's must be like? Nice shot of Jovian aurorae, too.

        • Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Informative)

          by barawn ( 25691 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:21AM (#13489572) Homepage
          The better counterargument to the kookdom is neutrinos.

          The vast majority of the energy in supernovae is emitted in neutrinos - upwards of 90%. The neutrinos from SN1987A aren't theoretical - we saw them. They were, in fact, the first extrasolar particles other than photons we've been able to associate with an astrophysical object.

          Neutrinos get produced when electrons and protons are forced into neutrons via inverse beta decay, which only happens at ridiculous pressures. They can't be produced by electromagnetic processes - they're weak byproducts only.

          There is nothing in that article to explain why the star would produce 10 times more energy in neutrinos than in photons. A magnetic pinch would not produce this much energy in neutrinos. There's simply not enough energy.

      • Re:Site seems down; here's that article's text (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tingulli 3 ( 783332 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @04:22AM (#13488172) Homepage
        This article is pure crap. I, as an High-energy astronomer, will never give credito to an article stating that "It is believed that a pulsar must be a super-collapsed stellar object that can spin up to thousands of times a second and emit a rotating beam of X-rays (like a lighthouse)." Pulsars that are the relic of supernovae (like the crab pulsar) are RADIO pulsars, meaning that they are mainly detected as pulsating sources at radio wavelengths. It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays (the crab pulsar is -again- a beautiful example), but a statement like the one in the article is completely misleading. I look forward a peer reviewed version of this article to come up on a serious journal. Until then, this is just crap (after all, we're on /., right?)

        • I would be hesitent (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jd ( 1658 )
          ...to call it pure crap, but you are correct in noting that the article is not sound and has not been peer-reviewed. As such, I would regard the article as suspect and probably false. However, until peer-reviewed and/or the main thrust of the article falsified by some other means, it can't be 100% certain the article is definitely false.

          HOWEVER, it is certainly reasonable to act on the assumption that this article is false as it is the more complicated theory and fails to explain a significant range of obse

        • It is indeed true that most of them do emit X-rays

          Most of them, in fact, emit X-rays, low energy gamma rays, and probably TeV gamma rays as well. The Crab is so bright in TeV gamma rays that it's the basic unit of flux in that region of the spectrum.

          But the bigger "this article is crap" flag that should go off in your head is the question "what about the neutrinos?" Magnetic reconnection can't create neutrinos, and SN1987A had a flux of neutrinos way, way above background, and consistent with the majority o
      • The article starts off making sense, but then degenerates into pseudoscientific nonsense and wishful thinking based on poorly resolved images.

        Stars forming along lines of electric current? Please. What would form such currents? How could they be stable for tens of millions of years? How would matter collect there? Why wouldn't all the regular, well-established theories of fusion apply? How does this explain white dwarfs? Etc. etc. etc. etc..

        This shouldn't have made it to Slashdot's front page or eve

        • Death to Occam's Razor! (Score:5, Funny)

          by Hoi Polloi ( 522990 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:02AM (#13489439) Journal
          Please! Isn't far simpler to think of stars being part of some invisible array of high power lines (we'll have proof some day, don't worry) and that neutrinos and heavy elements are being generated by some sort of electrical thingy. Stars explode and discharge mass through an electrical discharge which means the vacuum of space has an electrical potential of some sort that varies from place to place, once again we can't prove it but we know you are wrong.

          Now compare this to the misguided THEORIES of those scientists who try to suppress us! Instead of our wonderfully complex and gap riddled ideas they would have you believe it is as simple as gravitational compression. Arrogant fools! Common sense demands that the simpler explanation be dropped.

          Stop being fooled by MAINSTREAM scientists with their experiments, controls, peer reviews, data, exhaustive studies, hard work, successful predictions, working theories, revisions, and hard evidence.

          Next week, how refrigerator magnets can cure arthritis.
    • It's worth noting here that the serious people working in Plasma Cosmology (e.g. Peratt and Lerner) don't acknowledge the "Electric Universe" people (never mind the Velikovsky adherents). Being quoted by cranks doesn't make one a crank.

      There's serious work [lanl.gov] going on detecting and characterizing solar-, nebular-, galactic-, and galactic-supercluster- scale current flow that the Electric Universe people are happy to co-opt. Regardless of how supernovas happen, what you end up with really are huge clouds of

  • Wanted for questioning (Score:5, Funny)

    by carterhawk001 ( 681941 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:08AM (#13487873) Journal
    If anyone knows the where abouts of one Tolian Soran UFP Security is looking for him in connection with the artificial supernova 1987A. Soran is considered armed and dangerous and may be responsible for previous supernova, which can only be caused by external electrical forces directed at stars, and not their own gravity.

  • Science fiction (Score:2, Funny)

    by DLX ( 867128 )
    Poor sci-fi writers. Half of the (bad) sci-fi deals with supernovas being collapsed stars. What will they do now, use them as a power station?
  • So instead of stun gunning a burglar, you can also stun a pretty big object like a star? That is one heat resistant stun gun!

  • The Article is a troll (Score:5, Informative)

    by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:13AM (#13487889)

    Electric Universe [slashdot.org] is a well-known crackpot site, built on the most absurd pseudoscience. They're the same outfit that predicted a large explosion when Deep Impact [nasa.gov] hit Tempel 1.

    As usual, the /. editors display their utter inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. Idiots.

  • Elementary, my dear Watson... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrjb ( 547783 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:13AM (#13487890)
    ...those stars are being blown up by the Death Star.
  • Whre is the article?? Oh, wait, the nes is that some /.'er posted such a wild baseless claim?

    It must be the Death Star!!

  • Not even a LINK? (Score:5, Informative)

    by The Master Control P ( 655590 ) <ejkeeverNO@SPAMnerdshack.com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:15AM (#13487900)
    Since the submitter didn't bother including one, and the editor didn't do any better, here's one:

    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxn z1 [holoscience.com]

    It's already running so slow it's useless. What I managed to get screams crackpot:

    24 August 2005
    Supernova 1987A Decoded

    13 July 2005
    Comet Tempel 1's Electrifying Impact

    03 July 2005
    The Deep Impact of Comet Theory

    26 March 2005
    The Dragon Storm

    08 February 2005
    Columbia downed by Megalightning

    05 February 2005
    Saturn's Strange Hot Spot Explained

    30 January 2005
    Titan - A Rosetta Stone for early Earth?

    25 December 2004
    Megalightning at Saturn

    25 November 2004
    Titan puzzles scientists

    27 October 2004
    The True State of the Universe

  • Electric theory has already been discussed on /. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chryana ( 708485 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:17AM (#13487908)
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/0 3/1246254&tid=160 [slashdot.org]

    Summary of the previous discussion: the electric universe theory has as much scientific support as geocentrism.

    This should not be news on slashdot I suppose, but since it is, I guess we're going to spend some time bash.. I mean challenging the electric universe theory once more...

  • "Evidence" (Score:4, Informative)

    by EtherealStrife ( 724374 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:24AM (#13487941)
    The "evidence" provided is a single publication in an i triple e journal, that goes nowhere in 'proving' their theory

    FTFA:

    The crucial evidence for the electrical nature of supernovae must come from experiment and observation. Anthony L. Peratt, Fellow, IEEE, published a seminal paper in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 31, No. 6, December 2003. It was titled Characteristics for the Occurrence of a High-Current, Z-Pinch Aurora as Recorded in Antiquity. [lanl.gov] In it he explained the unusual characteristics of a high-energy plasma discharge. He discussed mega-ampere particle beams and showed their characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry. He wrote: "A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure."

    *sigh* I seriously doubt that 'supernovae are catastrophic electrical discharges focused on a star', and think that this is instead more unsubstantiated guesswork on the part of the Electronic Universe Theorists.

  • a story without a link

    a fringe crackpot theory on the front page

    no monty python foot

    • Re:has slashdot been hacked? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:41AM (#13488009)

      I see this as an inevitable consequence of the decline in scientific literacy among the nerd/geek population. Once, being a nerd was synonymous with having a good grounding in science, to the extent that one was capable of a rational, skeptical evaluation of new claims.

      Instead, we've now reached the point where being a nerd simply means you know how to buy a watercooling rig on the interweb and bolt it on to your processor.

  • Hah! They got it wrong! (Score:5, Funny)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@geekaz ... minus physicist> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:30AM (#13487964) Homepage
    Fools! They fail to understand that a supernova is caused by shock waves emitted when the turtle at the bottom of the stack of turtles that make up the universe is squashed by all the turtles above it. As new turtles come into being at the top of the stack, their weight eventually crushes the bottom turtle, causing the whole stack to drop jarringly. The resulting compression wave is felt by all the turtles, and sometimes causes the familiar flash of light mistakenly interpreted as a stellar explosion. Stars can't "explode" because they are merely holes in the firmament. Whoever heard of a hole exploding! Such foolishness!

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:37AM (#13487992)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • MORE proof of Intelligent Design! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee AT ringofsaturn DOT com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:47AM (#13488036) Homepage
    Who but the Flying Spaghetti Monster could possibly have a hair dryer powerful enough to destroy a star when He drops it in His Noodly Bathtub?

  • Can we get a pro to elaborate on the BS? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PurpleFloyd ( 149812 ) <`zeno20' `at' `attbi.com'> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:49AM (#13488044) Homepage
    First, it's pretty obvious this is absolute screaming bulls--t, if for no other reason than the priceless quote that "Stars are an electrical, not a thermonuclear, phenomenon," a gem at the beginning of the 18th paragraph.

    Some ludicrously misapplied scientific terms come to the front when Googled, too. Take "Birkeland current," one of the ideas put forth as some sort of power transmission line throughout the galaxy; a brief bit of research indicates that the phenomenon is referred to solely in a terrestrial context (at least, on non-out there sites)

    Another one? The paper referenced towards the end, entitled "Characteristics for the occurrence of a high-current, Z-pinch aurora as recorded in antiquity," and published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, relates solely to a large terrestrial aurora discharge.

    Still, it would be great if we could get a pro in here to thoroughly debunk this. Any astronomers want to step up to the challenge?

  • Does anyone filter science posts for credibility? (Score:5, Informative)

    by br4v3_s1r_r0b1n ( 718007 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:50AM (#13488047)
    This is crazy talk. I studied gravitational collapse TypeII supernova explosions in grad school. It's not an electrical phenomenon: it's a gravitational bounce outward from the solid (neutron) core after fusion peters out at Iron burning. From there, for sufficiently massive stars, you either get a neutron star or a black hole. Hans Bethe got the Nobel for explaining process the energy release(~10^51 erg). Aside from some of the 3d fluid dynamics of collapse and ejecta composition, the important parts of the process are fairly well understood.

    • Re:Does anyone filter science posts for credibilit (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @04:30AM (#13488194)

      it's a gravitational bounce outward from the solid (neutron) core after fusion peters out at Iron burning.

      Actually, recent models show that the bounce doesn't cause the explosion, since the outward-propagating shockwave stalls at some point within the stellar envelope. The current idea is that the explosion is caused by the neutrinos from the core, that get absorbed by the outer envelope and heat it up to crazy temperatures. Sure, the cross section for an individual neutrino to interact is miniscule; but with so many neutrinos being produced, enough of them interact to cause the explosion.

  • I see. (Score:3, Funny)

    by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:55AM (#13488068) Homepage
    Well clearly this disproves Evolution, then.

  • Plasma Cosmology... (Score:4, Informative)

    by geekyMD ( 812672 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @03:56AM (#13488070)
    Plasma Cosmology is not the same thing as Physical Cosmology. Asuming that stars aren't balls of flaming fusion and are nodes in a giant intergalactic powerline, well... you don't have to be a nuclear physicist to realize thats a strange idea.

    After you RTFA and think to yourself "I haven't heard that much non-sensical technobabble since Star Trek!" head over to Wiki's Plasma Cosmology page [wikipedia.org]. Or this more detailed page [answers.com]. Its contested, mainly because this is a contested field and the article is overly broad, but I think it fills in some of the holes.

    Honestly if their predictions are true it will change everything in cosmology. And if my predictions are true I'll win the Lotto. I'm not sure who has better odds....

  • Slow news day? (Score:5, Funny)

    by RocketRainbow ( 750071 ) <rocketgirl&myrealbox,com> on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @04:10AM (#13488129) Homepage Journal
    I'm impressed. The link to The Onion that was marked Google instead of Humour was a bit of a low point for Slashdot. But a story about a bunch of cranks that doesn't even include a link is a whole new record. Are you guys having a competition?

    Tomorrow's Stupid News article: RocketRainbow writes about a staggering discovery: "Some guy in a bar told me that he made a time machine". The implications are astonishing.

  • Finally! (Score:3, Funny)

    by aurb ( 674003 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @04:14AM (#13488145)
    Finally, a Slashdot post (not an Ask Slashdot or a book review) where I don't have to RTFA, because there is no TFA!

  • Talk about "Bad Astronomy"... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @04:34AM (#13488208) Journal
    I sent an email on this subject to Phil Plait at www.badastronomy.com, someone I consider an authority on astronomy and in particular supernova 1987a (it was the subject of his PhD).

    Hopefully Phil will have the time to examine the claims and comment on their truth or falsity on his web site.

    If you ever have a few hours to kill and want to read about some fascinating astronomy topics check out his web site. He spends a lot of time debunking claims made by "scientists" regarding such things as the face on Mars, the moon landing "hoax" and many other hugely engrossing topics.

  • almost... (Score:3)

    by N3wsByt3 ( 758224 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @05:41AM (#13488389) Journal
    They make a decent attempt in sounding scientific, and one would almost be inclined to consider it a viable hypothesis...untill they start introducing Stonehenge.

    That was just a wee bit over the top, guys. Next time, try to hold back on that, and some people might actually be fooled.

  • Not even good snake oil. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ancient_Hacker ( 751168 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @07:15AM (#13488663)
    Hmmm, so
    • supernovae just happen to match what would happen to a star under gravitational collapse when it runs short of fusion to support itesf.
    • we just happen to have the distribution of elements that would happen to a star under runaway fusion in spherical shells....
    • supernovae just happen to put out scads of neutrinos, just what would happen under runaway fusion.
    • supernovae just happen to push waves of matter in front of them, at the speeds and in the quantities expected under runaway fusion.
    I'm an astronomy news bottom-feeder, and even I see the problems with an "electrical" theory of supernovae.

  • Supernovae core collapse simulations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oojah ( 113006 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @08:54AM (#13489051) Homepage
    For those of you interested in what supernovae core collapse might look like, there are some simulated animations in the link below. Very pretty too.

    http://www.astro.le.ac.uk/~rt53/work/index.html [le.ac.uk]

    Cheers,

    Roger

  • This begs the question... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dsfox ( 2694 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @08:59AM (#13489077) Homepage
    What *do* we see when a star undergoes gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of its nuclear fuel?

  • Supernova 1987B Decoded (Score:4, Funny)

    by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:20AM (#13489565) Journal
    SBB writes "Green Universe News is reporting that scientists claim to have proof that 'supernovae are the direct catastrophic result of Global Warming on Earth' and not the result of giant stars undergoing gravitational collapse and subsequent explosion after having spent all of their nuclear fuel as previously thought."

  • This Guy is a Nutjob (Score:4, Informative)

    by Fujisawa Sensei ( 207127 ) on Tuesday September 06, 2005 @10:43AM (#13489729) Journal
    The extensive interdisciplinary scope of the Electric Universe model is highlighted by Peratt's recent discovery that objects from antiquity manifest 56- and 28-fold symmetry. These range from concentric petroglyphs around the world to geoglyphs (stone-rings), megaliths, and other constructs. The most renowned of the 56-fold symmetric megaliths is Stonehenge.

    Lets get real people! When people start using Stonehenge as evidence in their modern astronomy papers they you have a real crackpot. I mean this guy uses a preface from H.P. Lovecraft in his preface!

    The most merciful thing in the world ... is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents... The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality... That we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age. - H. P. Lovecraft

    Next think you know this guy is going to be claiming that the moon landing never happened. Oh, wait.... Perhaps calling his website hollow-science would be more appropriate.

  • I submitted this controversial article, and I suppose I ought to poke my head up and offer a few observations.

    First, if the story, as it showed up early this morning on /.'s main page, was missing a link to the article hosted by holoscience.com, it's not my fault, as I did include one, but the story as submitted (expectedly) underwent heavy editing before it was displayed for public consumption, and the editor must have accidentally dropped the link. By the time I visite Slashdot today, the mistake was corrected.

    I've seen many replies under this story crying "crackpots!" and "quacks!".

    But I haven't read even one yet that suggests some simple principles or facts which can be used to debunk the basic claim of the plasma cosmologists and the Electric Universe proponents: that plasma physics (i.e. electrodynamics as embodied in the behavior of plasmas) is not given enough credit when scietific models and theories that attempt to explain stellar and interstellar phenomenon.

    And I am all ears. I studied physics in college and was well on my way towards a B.A. in that discipline when I decided to try my hand as an entrepreneur during the dot-com boom. I think I've developed a fairly sensitive internal "b.s. meter" over the course of my lifetime. And I try to "keep up" in my personal (albeit hobbyist) study of science, with space physics and cosmology being my dominant interests. I read stuff on the "popular science" level and I am also comfortable reading papers of a more technical nature. I self-admittedly have a more philosophical bent in my musing upon these matters, but that is not a variant of the excuse, "I'm not so good at math" -- I am actually fairly competent when it comes to advanced mathematics.

    Several weeks ago, I read the story on /. that pointed to thunderbolts.info's "Deep Impact predictions" page. I'd never heard of "plasma cosmology" and the "Electric Universe" theories before . . . and so began to read about them. I discovered that there is quite a spectrum of thought that makes up this fringe scientific camp.

    On the one hand, you have the plasma physicists/cosmologists that believe that the behavior of stars, galaxies, galactic clusters, etc. are governed not primarily by the gravitational force but rather gravity AND electrodynamics, with electrodynamics dominant in many contexts. And they pretty much stop with that assertion and confine most of their work to exploring it.

    The Electric Universe enthusiasts go farther, and are trying to develop an all-encompassing framework in which they see every aspect of the universe (from the subatomic to the intergalactic) and its history as governed by the "Electric Force."

    Am I true believer in the so-called "Electric Universe?" No. I actually find members of that end of the spectrum in question to be a bit too eager to engage in polemics, and that doesn't impress me. On the other hand, I will say that I find myself highly sympathetic to the work and claims of plasma physicists like Dr. Anthony Peratt [lanl.gov].

    Here's why, in a nutshell: Since I was a little kid I've been fascinated by ideas like black holes, neutron stars, the "big bang," grand unified theories, etc., etc., etc. In fact, it was my reading Timothy Ferris' Galaxies [amazon.com] when I was in the 2nd grade that planted the seeds for my future interest in pursuing physics as a career. I read Hawking's A Brief History of Time [amazon.com] in the 6th grade, "understood" it, and from there began a more rigorous self-directed study into more advanced treatments of physics and mathematic

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close