This is no surprise if you follow the wave of evidence for the electrical universe model. It puts electricity and magnetism as the main shaping force of the universe while considering gravity a negligible influence.
Rational Wiki is a bit of a weird joke site where quasi-intellectuals go to troll and shitpost. Dang can correct me, but I think HN's rules, at some level, prohibit linking to such sites as a way to criticize someone.
Attacking another user like this will get you banned on HN.
If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
Look... the are bunch of us here who recieved a scientific training. While we don't claim that science can explain everything at the moment, we do claim that there are a lot of crackpots out there with appealing ideas but zero capability of explaining them in a credible fashion.
For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism.
With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it.
These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it.
If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum":
I can highly recommend Susskind's free continuing education lectures at Stanford https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQrxduI9Pds1fm91Dmn8x...
I've done the classical mechanics, special & general relativity series, can't comment on the quantum stuff, but I hear he has some sort of track record in it.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say... that you have put in the effort and you are confident in your analysis that this “electrical universe” hypothesis is not well formed?
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
Yes, I tried to look for materials. I have an MSc in physics. I know what science is supposed to look like and what crackpot stuff looks like. Electric Universe is solidly in the crackpot section. I can expand on this if you like but the "qualitative explanation for humans" would be quite long and not really fit for a short post on this medium.
OK you don't sound convinced; let's try another way of putting it. If it were any use, scientists would be using it. They are very practical like that.
It wouldn't help your case since that's a paraphrasing of this quote from Max Planck:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
I "recieved [sic] a scientific training" as well, and I choose not to call people names for trying out new ideas. Given the state of cosmology these days, all the questions and recent and unexplained phenomena, an open mind towards new hypotheses (yes, and encouraging following them up with tests ... in a non-snide way) is important.
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from.... Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Sagan
There is an ocean of difference between being open to new ideas and just letting any new concept get your equal mindshare without a compelling reason like evidence.
There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new.
When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it."
There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc.
Then there are the lone looneys.
If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources.
So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other.
Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well.
Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas.
An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.
"Wegener's theory drew from geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology. It also drew the wrath of scientists from these disciplines. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept."
> The image was made by combining data from multiple observations with the VLA's giant dish antennas arranged in different configurations to show both large structures and finer details within the galaxy. The naturally-emitted radio waves from the galaxy were analyzed to reveal the magnetic fields, including their directions.
In other words, this is a computer-generated image based on measured radio emissions and lots of modeling.
The papers linked in the article have a more detailed description of the methodology.
It's pretty cool they've been able to discover and image galactic Birkeland currents. Alfvén's work predicted that such things exist and, sadly, he didn't live long enough to see today's cosmologists continue his work.
But there is a huge problem with them. Like Alfven, I am against the idea of frozen magnetic fields. Frozen fields were invented to explain how magnetic fields can exist, without the need for electric currents. At that time they thought that space was a very good isolator. Thanks to laboratories and satellites we now know different.
With my background in electromagnetism, I have to go one step further: frozen fields are physically impossible. The papers and text-books about them show false usage of induction laws. As if magnetism behaves like a current, like in a waveguide with electromagnetic waves. Sadly this is completely false.
Induction in gasses or plasma behave a bit like those in a fluid, and they disperse the magnetic field. A bit like eddy currents. That is also what we see in our laboratories.
But magnetic fields can easily be caused by electric currents instead, because any electric current creates a magnetic field. This field is stronger when we measure closer to the current. So we can get very strong magnetic fields as we see inside young galaxies.
Link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong...
So we have electric plasma currents, instead of "magnetic ropes". Like in our laboratories. But I am not sure whether the community is ready to accept that..
Instead of the dynamo model, strong electric currents can easily come from nuclear explosions. These have been reported, but due to the secrecy they are not openly reported. Just a magnetic field can create a homopolar dynamo in an electric current. Currents are usually circular, but in a large space and very high speeds, the charge can take a long time to come around. It will be very interesting to actually measure the scale at which these occur.
Now if we have a black-hole like object in the centre of a galaxy, that spews out matter into 2 main directions. Because it also has a magnetic field, it is very likely that this matter has a certain charge. So this creates a current in the galaxy, which also generates the magnetic field. This how I think the magnetic field is generated.
The strength of these electric currents is in the order of 1/R, where R is the distance travelled. That is because currents are usually concentrated into one direction, like lightning, and only resistance hinders it. Magnetic objects encounter a force of 1/R^4 because magnetic objects have 2 poles. So these electric currents can transfer energy over very long distances.
As this matter-beam reaches the edge of the galaxy, it will turn around and go back to the galaxy. And because it has some charge, it will create a polarizing field in the halo.It would be interesting to see if there is also some sustained charge in these halos.
39 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 91.3 ms ] threadLook on youtube. Lots of good material.
If you know more than someone, the thing to do is to share some of what you know, respectfully and generously, so we all can learn. If you don't want to or don't have time, that's fine: not posting is always an option, and you're probably not the only user who knows more. Acting like an asshole is not ok. It poisons the commons.
BTW, thanks for inviting me not to contribute.
For some reason these crackpot theories appeal to people who feel for one reason or other that they are "missing something". Then charismatic personalities gravitate towards these communities and spin out yarn that feels right to the specific people listening to them creating a belief. Feels right and belief are the keywords here. There is no proof that would withstand rigorous criticism.
With science, you should love your pet theory, put also put the hard labour in to prove it. And if your testing creates evidence to the contrary, you should be cognitively able to abandon it.
These crackpot theorists start from their pet theory, don't actually study physics or what ever their theory is about, and spend all the effort in spinning yarn about how great their theory is, instead of actually proving it.
If you want to learn about actual physics, there is great introduction lecture series by Leaonard Susskind called "The theoretical minimum":
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL47F408D36D4CF129
Grab a pencil and paper and start watching :) !
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to give a long, vague treatise on crackpots in response to an actual human being, without directly addressing them.
Or not. "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Related HN discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from.... Fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources." - Sagan
There is a reason no one that is respected talks about these "crackpot" ideas. The established ideas are here because they survived decades of trying to be proved wrong but they survive since they fit observed nature. New ideas are just that: new.
When someone introduces a new type of database HN doesn't say "why won't people take new ideas with an open mind??", they say "SQL works and has been proven. You have to prove your new idea is better before I'll use it."
Exact same concept.
There are crackpot ideas tightly knit to a group identity like anti-vaccinations, flatearth, and so on. One way to identify crackpots is to look at the idea and figure out is it's presentation more like your CS 101 / physics 101 etc course or some nice respected physics paper, or more like one of the known looney scenes - flatearth, antivaxx, Meyers Briggs, Scientology etc.
Then there are the lone looneys.
If you don't know what they are talking about - at all - it's best to do some cursory education in the field using some or the other open university resources.
So, rule of thumb - look what an anti-vaxx scene looks like, look what a physics basic course looks like, and figure out is it more like one or the other.
Stuff that looks like some other looney stuff usually is looney stuff as well.
Saying looney for a looney is completely different from disregarding new valid ideas.
An example of a borderline case is the 'reactionleas thruster' they've been testing around the world. It would be awesome if it worked. It's a new idea, goes completely against physics. But it's has sufficient testing data to at least merit a second look by third parties.
"Wegener's theory drew from geology, geophysics, zoogeography and paleontology. It also drew the wrath of scientists from these disciplines. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept."
One funeral at a time.
I disagree but can offer no opposing evidence, therefore I'm going to mod your post into oblivion :]
In other words, this is a computer-generated image based on measured radio emissions and lots of modeling.
The papers linked in the article have a more detailed description of the methodology.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect#In_the_interste...
[1] https://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/research/fundamental/cosmag
But there is a huge problem with them. Like Alfven, I am against the idea of frozen magnetic fields. Frozen fields were invented to explain how magnetic fields can exist, without the need for electric currents. At that time they thought that space was a very good isolator. Thanks to laboratories and satellites we now know different.
With my background in electromagnetism, I have to go one step further: frozen fields are physically impossible. The papers and text-books about them show false usage of induction laws. As if magnetism behaves like a current, like in a waveguide with electromagnetic waves. Sadly this is completely false. Induction in gasses or plasma behave a bit like those in a fluid, and they disperse the magnetic field. A bit like eddy currents. That is also what we see in our laboratories.
But magnetic fields can easily be caused by electric currents instead, because any electric current creates a magnetic field. This field is stronger when we measure closer to the current. So we can get very strong magnetic fields as we see inside young galaxies. Link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/weirdly-strong... So we have electric plasma currents, instead of "magnetic ropes". Like in our laboratories. But I am not sure whether the community is ready to accept that..
Instead of the dynamo model, strong electric currents can easily come from nuclear explosions. These have been reported, but due to the secrecy they are not openly reported. Just a magnetic field can create a homopolar dynamo in an electric current. Currents are usually circular, but in a large space and very high speeds, the charge can take a long time to come around. It will be very interesting to actually measure the scale at which these occur.
Now if we have a black-hole like object in the centre of a galaxy, that spews out matter into 2 main directions. Because it also has a magnetic field, it is very likely that this matter has a certain charge. So this creates a current in the galaxy, which also generates the magnetic field. This how I think the magnetic field is generated.
The strength of these electric currents is in the order of 1/R, where R is the distance travelled. That is because currents are usually concentrated into one direction, like lightning, and only resistance hinders it. Magnetic objects encounter a force of 1/R^4 because magnetic objects have 2 poles. So these electric currents can transfer energy over very long distances.
As this matter-beam reaches the edge of the galaxy, it will turn around and go back to the galaxy. And because it has some charge, it will create a polarizing field in the halo.It would be interesting to see if there is also some sustained charge in these halos.
https://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/constellations/pages/bub... I suspect that the Fermi bubbles might have an opposite charge.