Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm
Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
Why did the famous astrophysicist, Sydney Chapman, so vehemently disagree with Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland? He stated that their ideas had no agreement with the laws of physics. Specifically, what were these laws that were violated?
Doug Ettinger
Spaceship Rider
Doug Ettinger
Spaceship Rider
- D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
He is not a physicist maybe that is why.
Regards,
Daniel
Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
I guess it was because Chapman had a different hypothesis and used his influence against the competition. When you've invested your effort and reputation on one point of view, its not so easy to back down, but it should be. A good scientist should always be open to new ideas and courteous to others with different ideas, after all if you are convinced you are right you should not need dirty tricks to prove it, the facts will stand for themselves. Look at someone like Richard Feynman for a great example of a scientist who kept an open mind.dougettinger wrote:Why did the famous astrophysicist, Sydney Chapman, so vehemently disagree with Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland? He stated that their ideas had no agreement with the laws of physics. Specifically, what were these laws that were violated?
Doug Ettinger
Spaceship Rider
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 12:34 am
Re: Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
Chapman had his own hypothesis and was naturally opposed to any alternative. Also, in those days, it was thought by the astronomical mainstream power structure that space was a "vacuum" and therefore there were no charge carriers available to carry an electric current. In addition, similar charges would repel each other and dissipate. Oppositely charged particles would attract each other and recombine into neutral particles. Besides Birkeland was not a member of the "in-group" of astronomy. What did he know?
-
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm
Re: Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
Thank you for an easily understandable reply. I will summarize the accepted ideas of Sydney Chapman and other important scientists of his day - some of which still persist. One needs a clearly identify the opposition's profile.
1. Space is a vacuum with little plasma between the stars and galaxies. Plasma mostly existed inside stars and emission nebula.
2. The idea of Birkeland current was still not accepted since no charge carriers were available for carrying current. Also, double layer and critical ionization velocity were not well understood as the means for carrying these currents.
3. Due to the parity of charge similar charges will repel each other and dissipate. Oppositely charged particles will attract each other and recombine into neutral particles if no longer in an excited state. There can be no prolonged plasma unless it is inside a stable star on the main sequence being powered by nuclear fusion.
4. Any electrical discharge in the Sun's atmosphere demands an exceptionally rapid and strong means of generating differences in electrical potential which is impossible.
5. From Eddington, "The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving, the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field."
6.. There are no electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star in galactic space that power the star externally and not by internal thermonuclear fusion.
If there are more reasons for Chapman's rejection in his day, I would be interested in knowing about them.
Doug Ettinger
Spaceship Rider
1. Space is a vacuum with little plasma between the stars and galaxies. Plasma mostly existed inside stars and emission nebula.
2. The idea of Birkeland current was still not accepted since no charge carriers were available for carrying current. Also, double layer and critical ionization velocity were not well understood as the means for carrying these currents.
3. Due to the parity of charge similar charges will repel each other and dissipate. Oppositely charged particles will attract each other and recombine into neutral particles if no longer in an excited state. There can be no prolonged plasma unless it is inside a stable star on the main sequence being powered by nuclear fusion.
4. Any electrical discharge in the Sun's atmosphere demands an exceptionally rapid and strong means of generating differences in electrical potential which is impossible.
5. From Eddington, "The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving, the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field."
6.. There are no electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star in galactic space that power the star externally and not by internal thermonuclear fusion.
If there are more reasons for Chapman's rejection in his day, I would be interested in knowing about them.
Doug Ettinger
Spaceship Rider
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Sydney Chapman disagrees. Why?
On a different but related note, here is an obituary for Halton Arp, similarly persecuted for not holding to the accepted point of view:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/scien ... .html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/scien ... .html?_r=0
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests