Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

poet1b
Plasma is subatomic structure.

Here, read up on the facts.

www.viewsfromscience.com...

The word "subatomic" doesn't appear in your link, does it? That must be your paraphrase?

Is this an accurate definition of plasma:

A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Mary Rose
Is this an accurate definition of plasma:

A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Do you see the problem with the question and the definition?

You ask if it's "accurate". I already indirectly asked the question about what constitutes a "significant number of electrically charged particles" though I expressed the question is slightly different terms, but I did ask specifically, what if it's 1%, or 0.01%, or some other low percentage of the particles being electrically charged. To rephrase the question, to be completely accurate it would be helpful if the definition specified what concentration of electrically charged particles constitutes the dividing line between what is "significant" and what is "insignificant", because "significant" doesn't seem to be a well-defined term. Where do you draw the line on what is "significant"? Unless you can do that I think the "accuracy" is a little bit questionable, but I have never seen an entirely "accurate" definition from that perspective.

There's no question if the number of charged particles is high that we are dealing with a plasma, but let's say at an altitude of 65 kilometers in the Earth's atmosphere, is the concentration of electrically charged particles "significant"? Since I don't know precisely what "significant" means, I can't say if it's a plasma or gas or what time of day it changes from one supposedly "distinct state" to the other "distinct state", the distinctions of which become questionable.

To get a little more technical, look at the last part of the definition: "a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior". We could run one experiment and find the electrical properties and behavior are not affected, then we might conclude the concentration is too low to be significant in that experiment. If we later conduct another experiment which is more sensitive, and see more dramatic electrical effects from the same concentration, we might then say it's significant and therefore it's a plasma, even though the prior experiment showed no significant effects and that it wasn't a plasma.

So my take is, that at high concentrations of charged particles the term "plasma" is well understood, but at low concentrations, it gets a little bit fuzzy, because, what is "significant"? It's unknown to me, because the degree of significance can vary with the type of observation made. Therefore I can't tell you if it's 1 hour after sunset or 3 hours after sunset or whatever that the atmosphere at 65 km turns from a plasma into a gas, if it even was really a plasma to begin with. When solar activity is low it might not be a plasma in the first place.

It's more clear to say that the charged particles constitute a distinct state of matter, but unless someone can define "significant" more accurately, I don't think "plasma" is as "distinct" from "gas" at very low concentrations of charged particles as that definition would imply.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


This part is probably the part that is significant for all practical purposes:

. . . sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

This statement from Wikipedia is helpful:

Unlike gases, plasmas are electrically conductive, produce magnetic fields and electric currents, and respond strongly to electromagnetic forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Did you read this in my previous post?

"Just as there are gases and liquids in solids, solids and gases in liquids, and solids and liquids in gases, there is also the fourth state of matter, plasma."

The thing about our atmosphere is that there is no definitive boundary, like the surface or the ocean, where the gas ends and the plasma begins.

Essentially, plasma is everywhere. I think eventually, we will find out that a magnetic field is a form of a plasma structure.

reply to post by dragonridr


Even today, they only teach kids that there are 3 states of matter. Find a fifth grader, and ask them.

sorry the universe disagrees with you.

WOW, what an arrogant statement, as if anyone knows what the universe is thinking, that they know it all.

By the way humans produce heat light and guess what electricity as well so i guess were plasma as well.

The spark of life, our souls, that which animates the flesh, could very well be plasma.

What are foo fighters?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Good point, that is my paraphrase.

The term used is ion, which is an atom which is missing an electron, or in the case of hydrogen, a single proton, which is the typical state of hydrogen, H. It is an atom missing parts, so I think the term subatomic applies.

A single electron is charged, so that would also qualify a group of electrons as plasma, although they would need protons to be electrically neutral, in the structure of plasma.

poet1b
. . . although they would need protons to be electrically neutral, in the structure of plasma.

I'm not sure why you added that part.

How does something being electrically neutral fit in to the definition of what a plasma is?

reply to post by poet1b


Your wrong my son is in the third grade and hes learned about the 4 states of matter. You obviously have no clue what educators are teaching kids and where ever you got your education lets say that it wasn't very good. Heres a website by a company that actually makes text books for schools.

www.edinformatics.com...

Now the rest of your response to me explains so much and i now see why you buy into psuedo science. Well as my dad used to tell me you cant argue with crazy so im done trying to teach you about plasma time to move on.

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes, it is so unscientific to speculate and hypothesize.

Especially when you all ready know all the answers.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Typically plasma is electrically neutral, or supposed to be.

The thing is, that we know very little about plasma. We have only known about it for about 150 years. Most plasma is out in space.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes, it is so unscientific to speculate and hypothesize.

Especially when you all ready know all the answers.

No thats fine its when you try to ignore observations and experimentation to believe in pseudo science thats the problem. Plasma isnt new weve known about it for over a hundred years there has been thousands of experiments. Yet you choose to ignore all that to believe in a theory that has been shown by observation of the universe not to even be plausible. It was considered by scientists and ruled out as a possibility do to the fact it cant predict many things we know to be true.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Did you read this in my previous post?

"Just as there are gases and liquids in solids, solids and gases in liquids, and solids and liquids in gases, there is also the fourth state of matter, plasma."

I read that and I've had ice cubes in my drink and I call that a liquid with solid ice cubes in it. But my point about plasma is the definition would be more clear if it was defined the way you are implying, that if we could say a mixture of 99% gaseous uncharged particles and 1% charged particles was 99% gas and 1% plasma, but we don't use plasma that way...we call the whole thing a plasma. Part of the reason for this is that the charged particles have some properties similar enough to a gas that it mixes readily with a gas, which is why I couldn't understand you denying it was similar to a gas. Other properties of course like the ability to conduct electricity distinguish the two, but the fact remains that if the plasma is 100% charged particles it will be more conductive than if it's only 1% charged particles..

poet1b
The thing about our atmosphere is that there is no definitive boundary, like the surface or the ocean, where the gas ends and the plasma begins.

Right. This is what I've been trying to say to illustrate the idea that what we call "plasma" can be so similar to gas we can't even find where one begins and the other ends in our atmosphere.

The thing about our atmosphere is that there is no definitive boundary, like the surface or the ocean, where the gas ends and the plasma begins.

Essentially, plasma is everywhere. I think eventually, we will find out that a magnetic field is a form of a plasma structure.

I don't know what leads you to that idea. You can put an electrically neutral permanent magnet in a vacuum chamber, and remove any charged particles from around the magnet. and it will still have a magnetic field so this would easily prove that idea false, wouldn't it? But yes plasma is ubiquitous in the universe, except for little pockets like the surface of the Earth where we live, where it's not so easy to find in nature except lightning etc.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

This part is probably the part that is significant for all practical purposes:

. . . sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

That doesn't draw any kind of line at low concentrations of charged particles because Experiment A might show electrical properties and experiment B may not, on the same matter. Maybe pictures will help illustrate why I say it's not so distinct. First, look at the phase diagram for solid, liquid and gas and note there is a thin line separating them:

en.wikipedia.org...


There are some transitional properties where the lines are (phase change areas), but the regions are usually fairly narrow which is why they can be depicted with lines.

Now look at the corresponding graph of plasma:

w3fusion.ph.utexas.edu...

In the upper left, black background area represents plasmas.

In the lower right, the green background area represents gases.

Note that there is no distinct line between the two like there is between the other three phases. It's literally drawn as a "fuzzy", "Gray area" of transition, which in my view is a fairly accurate representation in some respects. The closer in this gray area you get to the green, the weaker the electrical properties become until they just fade away, to the point they become so small it can be questionable whether the electrical properties are "significant" or not.

But it's a pretty cool illustration which explains how we think most of the baryonic universe is plasma shown in various forms in the upper left. Also note this is a mainsteam science view of plasma (Produced by Division of Plasma Physics of the American Physical Society). It's a little annoying when electric universe people act like they are the only ones that know about plasma, but also sad and funny.

reply to post by poet1b


Why would charged particles be electrically neutral?

Unlike gases, plasmas are electrically conductive, produce magnetic fields and electric currents, and respond strongly to electromagnetic forces.

en.wikipedia.org...

Is being electrically neutral compatible with all of the above?

A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

If plasma is electrically neutral, what effect regarding electrical properties and behavior is referred to, then?

reply to post by Mary Rose


This should answer that question:

Plasma

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero). It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’. When the charges move they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields.

A hydrogen atom is electrically neutral. Split the proton from the electron and the two still cancel each other out from a distance, so still neutral overall, but now the electron can conduct electricity which it couldn't do when it was bound to the hydrogen atom.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Generating electrical currents with magnetic fields is considered electrically neutral?

reply to post by Mary Rose

Plasmas are considered electrically neutral, because the positive and negative charges are in balance. They can conduct electricity.

If you had a stream of electrons, that can form a current, and it wouldn't be electrically neutral, so some plasmas can form electric currents, but not all electric currents occur in plasmas.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So when a plasma is forming an electric current, it's not neutral electrically, is it?

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Generating electrical currents with magnetic fields is considered electrically neutral?

What it means is we need to add energy to cause a reaction. Plasma will not generate electricity we can use a magnetic field to separate the positive and neutral charges and create a charge.The most comon way to get a reaction is to run an electric charge through it like a plasma torch for example. But we need to add energy to get plasma to do anything.