Misplaced Pages

Plasma cosmology: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:56, 28 April 2007 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits Cosmic plasma: fixing order.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:04, 5 September 2024 edit undoHeadbomb (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors453,894 editsm top: clean up, replaced: lanl.arxiv.org → www.arxiv.orgTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Non-standard model of the universe; emphasizes the role of ionized gases}}
{{totallydisputed}}
].<ref name=Alfven1990 >{{cite journal
] suggested that,
|last1=Alfven | first1=H.O.G.
by ] laboratory results by a factor of 10<sup>9</sup>, he could extrapolate ] conditions. Another scaling jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required to extrapolate to the Hubble distance. <ref name=scaling>Hannes Alfvén, "" (1983) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'' (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 313-324.</ref>]]
|year=1990
|title= Cosmology in the plasma universe – an introductory exposition
|journal=IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science
|volume=18
|pages=5–10
|doi=10.1109/27.45495
|bibcode=1990ITPS...18....5A }}</ref>]]


'''Plasma cosmology''' is a ] whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and ] play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at ] and ] scales.<ref name="Peratt1992">{{cite journal
'''Plasma cosmology''' is a ]<ref>It is described as such by advocates and critics alike. In the February 1992 issue of ''Sky & Telescope'' ("Plasma Cosmology"), Anthony Peratt describes it as a "nonstandard picture". The open letter at &ndash; which has been signed by Peratt and Lerner &ndash; notes that "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". The ] big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard ]" or "standard ]" of cosmology , and .</ref> originally proposed by ] in the 1960s that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the combined effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces inherent to ]. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas based on ] of observations from terrestrial laboratories and in situ ] experiments to ] scales ] greater.<ref name=scaling/> His most famous cosmological proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ] ] and ] in the form of so-called '''ambiplasma''' that would naturally separate as ] occurred accompanied by a tremendous release of ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}
|last1 = Peratt
|first1 = Anthony
|title = Plasma Cosmology
|journal = Sky & Telescope
|volume = 83
|issue = 2
|pages = 136–141
|date = February 1992
|url = http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf
|access-date = 26 May 2012
}} recount: It was described as this in the February 1992 issue of ''Sky & Telescope'' ("Plasma Cosmology"), and by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s, who describes it as a "nonstandard picture". The ] big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard ]" or "standard ]" of cosmology {{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, and .</ref><ref name=Alfven1990 /> In contrast, the current ] and ] of ] and ] explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by ] (including its formulation in ]'s ]).


The original form of the theory, '''Alfvén–Klein cosmology''', was developed by ] and ] in the 1960s and 1970s,<ref name="Parker1993">{{cite book
Plasma cosmology contradicts the current ] of ] that ]'s ] explains the ] on its ], relying instead on the further development of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics as applied to astrophysical plasmas. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are generally ignored by the professional ] ].<ref>Plasma cosmology advocates ] and ], in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences", and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". </ref><ref>] writes in , "For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers."</ref>
|last=Parker
|first=Barry
|date=1993
|title=The Vindication of the Big Bang
|chapter=Plasma Cosmology
|chapter-url=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4899-5980-5_15
|publisher=Springer
|location=Boston, MA
|isbn=978-1-4899-5980-5
|doi=10.1007/978-1-4899-5980-5_15
|page=325
}}</ref> and holds that matter and ] exist in equal quantities at very large scales, that the universe is eternal rather than bounded in time by the ], and that the ] is caused by annihilation between matter and antimatter rather than a mechanism like ].<ref name=Alfven1990 />


Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted ].{{sfn|Parker|1993|pp=335–336}} Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.
==Cosmic plasma==
{{main|astrophysical plasma}}
Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career attempting to characterize ] for which he was awarded the ] in 1970. However, while ] is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena due in part to plasma's ubiquity, Alfvén held to a few ideas which have not been accepted by the ]. Chief among these is the assertion that ]s are equal in importance with ] on the ].<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space.... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10<sup>-4</sup> gauss, which gives the ≈ 10<sup>7</sup>. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)</ref> Alfvén came to this conclusion by simply extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales.<ref name=scaling/> While ]s are considered of interest to modern ] in many standard smaller-scale astrophysical structure formation models with ] speeding ] by transferring ] from the contracting objects, standard large-scale structure models do not normally consider the magnetic field large enough to aid in angular momentum transfer for ] in ].<ref>Colafrancesco, S. and Giordano, F. ''The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M - T relation'' Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 454, Issue 3, August II 2006, pp.L131-L134. recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value.... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative relation for massive clusters."</ref> Research in these issues is ongoing, but plasma processes are not considered in theoretical modeling to play a signifcant role in ] or ].<ref>See for example: Dekel, A. and Silk, J. ''The origin of dwarf galaxies, cold dark matter, and biased galaxy formation'' Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 39-55. where they model plasma processes in galaxy formation that is driven primarily by gravitation of cold dark matter.</ref> Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for most ] including ], ], or the existence of the ].


The term '''plasma universe'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology,<ref name="Peratt1992"/> as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe.<ref name=Alfven1990 /> Plasma cosmology is distinct from ] ideas collectively called the ''Electric Universe,'' though proponents of each are known to be sympathetic to each other''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Hogan and Velikovsky |url=https://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/velikovsky.htm |access-date=2023-08-24 |website=www.jerrypournelle.com}}</ref>''<ref name="sa-eu">{{Cite news |last=Shermer |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Shermer |date=2015-10-01 |title=The Difference between Science and Pseudoscience |work=] |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-difference-between-science-and-pseudoscience/ |access-date=2022-03-28}}</ref> These pseudoscientific ideas vary widely<ref>Bridgman, William T., Stuart Robbins, and C. Alex Young. "Crank Astronomy As A Teaching Tool." ''American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts# 215''. Vol. 215. 2010.</ref> but generally claim that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs, contradicting well-established ] and observations showing that stars are powered by ].<ref>
Some of the more provocative proposals of Alfvén included qualitative explanations for ] using ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "" ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.</ref> These plasma currents were held by Alfvén and his supporters to be responsible for many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations. However, there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena do not include plasma current mechanisms.
{{cite web
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
| title = The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe
| last = Scoles
| first = Sarah
| date = 18 February 2016
| website = Motherboard
| publisher = Vice
| access-date = 1 November 2022
| quote = }}</ref>


==Alfvén–Klein cosmology<!--'Alfvén–Klein cosmology', 'Alfvén–Klein model', 'Klein–Alfvén cosmology', and 'Ambiplasma' redirect here-->==
==Alfvén and Klein cosmologies==
] suggested that ] laboratory results can be extrapolated up to the scale of the universe. A scaling jump by a factor 10<sup>9</sup> was required to extrapolate to the ], a second jump to extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump to extrapolate to the ].<ref name=scaling>{{cite journal
] .]]
|last1=Alfvén
The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed in 1965 by Alfvén in his book ''Worlds-Antiworlds'', basing some of his work on ]'s earlier proposal that ]s played an important role in ]. In 1971, Klein would extend Alfvén's proposals and develop the "Alfvén-Klein model" of cosmology. Their cosmology relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic ] and ] that created the ] or ''meta-]'' as they preferred to speculate (see the ] for more on the history of distinguishing between the universe and the ]). This hypothetical substance that spawned the universe was termed "ambiplasma" and took the forms of proton-antiprotons (heavy ambiplasma) and electrons-positrons (light ambiplasma). In Alfvén's cosmology, the universe contained ''heavy'' symmetric ambiplasma with protective ''light'' ambiplasma, separated by ]s. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate with each other rapidly. ] ] would emanate from the double layers of plasma and antiplasma domains. The exploding ] was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of ]{{Fact|date=February 2007}}, ] and ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H., "", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "" (1986)</ref>
|first1=Hannes
|date=1983
|title=On hierarchical cosmology
|journal=Astrophysics and Space Science
|volume=89
|issue=2
|pages=313–324
|bibcode=1983Ap&SS..89..313A|doi=10.1007/bf00655984 |s2cid=122396373
}}</ref>]]


In the 1960s, the theory behind plasma cosmology was introduced by Alfvén,<ref name="Alfven1966" >{{cite book
Ambiplasma was proposed in part to explain the observed ] in the universe as being due to an ] of exact ] between matter and antimatter.<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). H. Alfvén, ''Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology,'' (Freeman, 1966). O. Klein, "Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology," ''Science'' '''171''' (1971), 339.</ref> According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred at the boundaries. Therefore, they concluded that we must happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly ]s rather than ]s. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature.
|first=Alfvén |last=H.
|title=Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology
|publisher=Freeman
|date=1966 }}</ref> a plasma expert who won the 1970 ] for his work on ].<ref name="Kragh1996" /> He proposed the use of ] to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and ] observations and scale them over many ] up to the largest observable objects in the universe (see box<ref name=scaling/>).<ref name="Alfvenpu1987">{{cite journal
|last1=Alfven | first1=H.O G
|title=Plasma universe
|journal=Physica Scripta
|volume=T18
|pages=20–28
|url=http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/AlfvenPlasmaUniverse.pdf
|date= 1987
|doi=10.1088/0031-8949/1987/t18/002|bibcode = 1987PhST...18...20A | s2cid=250828260
}}</ref> In 1971, ], a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended the earlier proposals and developed the Alfvén–Klein model of the ],<ref>{{cite journal
|last1=Klein|first1=O.
|title=Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology
|journal=Science
|volume=171
|issue=3969
|pages=339–45
|doi=10.1126/science.171.3969.339
|bibcode=1971Sci...171..339K
|pmid=17808634
|date=1971|s2cid=22308581
}}</ref> or "metagalaxy", an earlier term used to refer to the empirically accessible part of the universe, rather than the entire universe including parts beyond our ].<ref name="Alfven1963">{{cite book
|last1=Alfvén|first1=H.
|last2=Falthammar|first2=C.-G.
|title=Cosmic electrodynamics
|publisher=Clarendon Press
|location=Oxford
|date=1963}}</ref><ref name="Kragh1996">{{cite book
|last=Kragh
|first=H.S.
|title=Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe
|volume=23
|pages=482–483
|isbn=978-0-691-00546-1
|publisher=Princeton University Press
|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=f6p0AFgzeMsC&pg=PA384
|date=1996}}</ref>


In this model, the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and ] with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic ]s formed by ], thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. Interaction between these boundary regions would generate radiation, and this would form the plasma. Alfvén introduced the term '''ambiplasma'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> for a plasma made up of matter and antimatter and the double layers are thus formed of ambiplasma. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers will act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter. The idea of ambiplasma was developed further into the forms of heavy ambiplasma (protons-antiprotons) and light ambiplasma (electrons-positrons).<ref name="Alfven1966" />
Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed<ref>Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) ''Trita-EPP'', 1988, 07, p. 6. See also Anthony L. Peratt, "" (1995) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227, p. 3-11: "issues now a hundred years old were debated including plasma cosmology's traditional refusal to claim any knowledge about an 'origin' of the universe (e.g., Alfvén, 1988).</ref> due to ] arguments and rejection of '']'' models as a stealth form of ].<ref>Alfvén, Hannes, "" (1992) ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also </ref> The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent ] as merely a local phase of a much larger history.


Alfvén–Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed ] in the universe, starting from an ] of exact ] between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly ]s rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets, or bubbles, of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed ], which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed <ref name="Alfven1988">{{cite web
==Further developments==
|last1=Alfvén |first1=H.
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most ] or ], researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE ] that are co-edited by plasma cosmology proponent ].<ref>(See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in , , , , , , and 2007 Announcement here)</ref> A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, ], an independent researcher in ] and ], wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called ''The Big Bang Never Happened''. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other ]). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the ] might not have a ]. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of ] satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.{{Fact|date=April 2007}}
|title=Has the Universe an Origin? (Trita-EPP)
|volume=7
|page=6
|url=http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/20/047/20047579.pdf
|date=1988}}</ref><ref name=Peratt>{{cite journal
|last1=Peratt|first1=A.L.
|title=Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology
|journal=Astrophysics and Space Science
|volume=227
|issue=1–2
|pages=3–11
|bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227....3P
|doi=10.1007/bf00678062
|url = http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/PrincetonEditorial.1993.pdf
|date=1995|isbn=978-94-010-4181-2
|s2cid=118452749
}}</ref> due to ] arguments and the rejection of '']'' models, such as the ], as a stealth form of ].<ref name="Alfven1992">{{cite journal
|last1=Alfvén |first1=H.
|title=Cosmology: Myth or Science?
|journal=IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science
|volume=20
|issue=6
|pages=590–600
|bibcode=1992ITPS...20..590A
|doi=10.1109/27.199498
|year=1992
}}</ref><ref name="Alfven1984">{{cite journal
|last1=Alfvén|first1=H.
|title=Cosmology - Myth or science?
|journal=Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy
|volume=5
|issue=1
|pages=79–98
|issn=0250-6335
|bibcode = 1984JApA....5...79A
|doi=10.1007/BF02714974
|date=1984|s2cid=122751100
}}</ref> The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of ],
<ref name="Alfven1981">{{cite book
|first=Alfvén |last=H.
|title=Cosmic plasma
|pages=IV.10.3.2, 109
|publisher=Taylor & Francis
|date=1981}} recount: "Double layers may also produce extremely high energies. This is known to take place in solar flares, where they generate solar cosmic rays up to 10<sup>9</sup> to 10<sup>10</sup> eV."</ref> ] and ]s.<ref name="Alfven1986">{{cite journal
|last1=Alfvén |first1=H.
|title=Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
|journal=IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science
|volume=PS-14
|issue=6
|pages=779–793
|date=1986
|bibcode=1986ITPS...14..779A|doi = 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316626 |s2cid=11866813
|url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/169085
|hdl=2060/19870005703
|hdl-access=free
}}</ref>


In 1993, theoretical cosmologist ] criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the ] and ]s".<ref name="Peebles1993">{{cite book
==Comparison to mainstream cosmology==
|last=Pebbles|first=P.J.E.
{{cosmology}}
|title=Principles of Physical Cosmology
From a theoretical point of view, there remain a number of problems with the plasma cosmology model. The model is not formulated to the point where it is possible to perform numerical simulations similar to those now routinely performed to model the behaviour of early galaxies in the standard cosmology and which are used to predict the ] of the universe. The standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on dark matter collecting into the ]s, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the ] of the ].<ref>See ''e.g.'' P. J. E. Peebles, ''Large-scale structure of the universe'' (Princeton, 1980).</ref> Recent simulations show agreement between observations of ]s and ] of the ].<ref>See, for example, the large-scale simulation of "universes in boxes" with the largest voids reaching such sizes. See also F. Hoyle and M. S. Vogeley, Voids in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, ''Astrophys. J.'' '''607''', 751&ndash;764 (2004) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0312533}}.</ref> Most astrophysicists accept ] as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of ]s using ] also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models.<ref>See ''e.g.'' M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, ''Phys. Rept.'' '''340''' 291&ndash;472 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=9912508}}.</ref>
|publisher=Princeton University Press
|pages=207
|isbn=978-0-691-07428-3
|date=1993}}</ref> In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict ], ], or the existence of the ]. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter ] results in the production of high energy ]s, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the ], this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.


== Plasma cosmology and the study of galaxies ==
Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is ] on large scales ] required by plasma filamentation proposals.<ref>P. J. E. Peebles, ''Principles of Physical Cosmology'' (Princeton, 1993). P. J. E. Peebles, ''Large-scale structure of the universe'' (Princeton, 1980).</ref> The largest galaxy number count to date, the ], corresponds well to the mainstream picture.<ref>M. Tegmark ''et al.'' (SDSS collaboration), "The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", ''Astrophysical J.'' '''606''' 702&ndash;740 (2004). {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0310725}} The failure of alternative structure formation models is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter ] from a ] at scales larger than 0.5 ] ]<sup>-1</sup> (visible ).The authors comment that their work has "thereby yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis..."</ref>
Hannes Alfvén from the 1960s to 1980s argued that plasma played an important if not dominant role in the universe. He argued that ] are far more important than ] when acting on interplanetary and interstellar ]s.<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics''(2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10<sup>−4</sup> gauss (10 ]s), which gives the ≈ 10<sup>7</sup>. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared with gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)</ref> He further hypothesized that they might promote the contraction of ]s and may even constitute the main mechanism for contraction, initiating ].<ref name="Alfven1978" >{{cite journal | last1 = Alfvén | first1 = H. | last2 = Carlqvist | first2 = P. | year = 1978 | title = Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars | journal = Astrophysics and Space Science | volume = 55 | issue = 2| pages = 487–509 | bibcode=1978Ap&SS..55..487A|doi = 10.1007/BF00642272 | s2cid = 122687137 | url = https://cds.cern.ch/record/118596 }}</ref> The current standard view is that magnetic fields can hinder collapse, that large-scale ]s have not been observed, and that the length scale for charge neutrality is predicted to be far smaller than the relevant cosmological scales.<ref name="Siegel2006" >{{Cite journal |author= Siegel, E. R. |author2= Fry, J. N. |title= Can Electric Charges and Currents Survive in an Inhomogeneous Universe? |date= Sep 2006 |arxiv= astro-ph/0609031 |bibcode= 2006astro.ph..9031S }}</ref>


In the 1980s and 1990s, Alfvén and ], a plasma physicist at ], outlined a program they called the "plasma universe".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Alfvén | first1 = H. | year = 1986 | title = Model of the Plasma Universe | url = http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/ModelOfTPU_Alfv%C3%A9n.pdf | journal = IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science | volume = PS-14 | issue = 6| pages = 629–638 | doi = 10.1109/tps.1986.4316614 | bibcode = 1986ITPS...14..629A | s2cid = 31617468 }}{{Dead link|date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name="WI1">A. L. Peratt, ''Plasma Cosmology: Part I, Interpretations of a Visible Universe'', World & I, vol. 8, pp. 294–301, August 1989. </ref><ref name="WI2">A. L. Peratt, ''Plasma Cosmology:Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles'', World & I, vol. 9, pp. 306–317, September 1989 .</ref> In plasma universe proposals, various plasma physics phenomena were associated with astrophysical observations and were used to explain contemporary mysteries and problems outstanding in astrophysics in the 1980s and 1990s. In various venues, Peratt profiled what he characterized as an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream models applied in astrophysics and cosmology.<ref name=WI1 /><ref name=WI2 /><ref name=ST>{{Cite web|url=http://www.plasmauniverse.info/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.pdf|title=A.L. Peratt, ''Plasma Cosmology,'' Sky & Tel. Feb. 1992}}</ref><ref name=Peratt />
Light element production without ] (as required in plasma cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive ]s and ]s beyond that observed.<ref>J.Audouze ''et al.', Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements, 'Astrophysical Journal'' '''293''':L53-L57, 1985 June 15</ref><ref>Epstein ''et al.'', The origin of deuterium, ''Nature'', Vol. 263, September 16, 1976 point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.</ref> This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals.<ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 ) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Systhesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71-75 Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed. This could be resolved by proposing, as Alfvén did, that the bubble of matter we are in is larger than the observable universe. In order to test such a model, some signature of the ambiplasma would have to be looked for in current observations, and this requires that the model be formalized to the point where detailed quantitative predictions can be made. This has not been accomplished.


For example, Peratt proposed that the mainstream approach to galactic dynamics which relied on gravitational modeling of stars and gas in galaxies with the addition of dark matter was overlooking a possibly major contribution from plasma physics. He mentions laboratory experiments of ] in the 1950s that created plasma discharges that looked like galaxies.<ref name="Peratt1986b">{{cite journal |author=A. Peratt |title=Evolution of the plasma universe. I – Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets |journal=IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science |issn=0093-3813 |volume=PS-14 |issue=6 |pages=639–660 |date=1986 |url=http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf |bibcode = 1986ITPS...14..639P |doi = 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316615 |s2cid=30767626 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bostick | first1 = W. H. | year = 1986 | title = What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small | journal = IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science | volume = PS-14 | issue = 6| pages = 703–717 | bibcode=1986ITPS...14..703B|doi = 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316621 | s2cid = 25575722 }}</ref> Perrat conducted computer simulations of colliding plasma clouds that he reported also mimicked the shape of galaxies.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=AL Peratt |author2=J Green |author3=D Nielson |title=Evolution of Colliding Plasmas |journal=Physical Review Letters |volume=44 |issue=26 |date=20 June 1980 |pages=1767–1770|bibcode = 1980PhRvL..44.1767P |doi = 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1767 }}</ref> Peratt proposed that galaxies formed due to plasma filaments joining in a ], the filaments starting 300,000 light years apart and carrying ]s of 10<sup>18</sup> amperes.<ref name="Lerner" /><ref name="Peratt1983">{{cite journal |author1=AL Peratt |author2=J Green |title=On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas |journal=Astrophysics and Space Science |volume=91 |issue=1 |date=1983 |pages=19–33|bibcode = 1983Ap&SS..91...19P |doi = 10.1007/BF00650210 |s2cid=121524786 }}</ref> Peratt also reported simulations he did showing emerging jets of material from the central buffer region that he compared to ] and ] occurring without ]s. Peratt proposed a sequence for ]: "the transition of double ] to ] to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and ], finally ending in ]".<ref name="Peratt1986">{{cite journal |author=A. Peratt
Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the ] has been published since ] results were announced, explanations relying on integrated starlight do not provide any indication of how to explain the observed angular power spectrum of one part in 10<sup>5</sup> CMB anisotropies. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by ] and was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang to the detriment of alternatives.<ref>D. N. Spergel ''et al.'' (WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters", ''Astrophys. J. Suppl.'' '''148''' (2003) 175.</ref> These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.
|title=Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies |journal=IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science |issn=0093-3813 |volume=PS-14 |issue=6 |pages=763–778 |date=1986 |url=http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf|bibcode = 1986ITPS...14..763P |doi = 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316625 |s2cid=25091690 }}</ref> He also reported that flat ] were simulated without ].<ref name= "Lerner">{{cite book
|author=E. J. Lerner
|title=The Big Bang Never Happened
|publisher=Random House
|location=New York and Toronto
|date=1991
|isbn=978-0-8129-1853-3
|url=https://archive.org/details/bigbangneverhapp00lern
}}</ref> At the same time ], an independent plasma researcher and supporter of Peratt's ideas, proposed a plasma model for quasars based on a ].<ref>{{cite journal |author=E.J. Lerner |title=Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies |journal=Laser and Particle Beams |volume=4 part 2 |issue=2 |date=1986 |pages=193‑222 |bibcode = 1986LPB.....4..193L |doi = 10.1017/S0263034600001750 |doi-access=free }}</ref>


==Comparison with mainstream astrophysics==
Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.
Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known ] into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with ] playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in ] and ]. To that end, both ] orbits and ]'s ] are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and ], while ] and ] additionally appeal to ] processes including plasma physics and ] to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the ]s and ]s. Due to overall ], ] does not provide for very long-range interactions in astrophysics even while much of the matter in the universe is ].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QJ08AAAAIAAJ|title=Accretion Power in Astrophysics|last1=Frank|first1=Juhan|last2=Frank|first2=Carlos|last3=Frank|first3=J. R.|last4=King|first4=A. R.|last5=Raine|first5=Derek J.|date=1985-04-18|publisher=CUP Archive|isbn=9780521245302|language=en|page=25}}</ref> (See ] for more.)


Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the ]<ref name=Peratt1986 /> and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.<ref name=Alfven1978 /> In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat ] of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for ] in galaxies and with the need for ]s in galaxy centres to power ]s and ].<ref name="Peratt1983"/><ref name=Peratt1986 /> However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times ",<ref name=Siegel2006 /> i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10<sup>18</sup> amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.<ref name="Colafrancesco2006" >{{cite journal | last1 = Colafrancesco | first1 = S. | last2 = Giordano | first2 = F. | year = 2006 | title = The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M – T relation | journal = Astronomy and Astrophysics | volume = 454 | issue = 3| pages = L131–134 | bibcode=2006A&A...454L.131C | doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20065404|arxiv = astro-ph/0701852 | s2cid = 1477289 }} recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative relation for massive clusters."</ref> Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the ] and the nature of ]s, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe.
==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />


Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without ], which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive ]s and ]s beyond that observed.<ref>{{cite journal | year = 1985 | title = Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements | journal = Astrophysical Journal | volume = 293 | pages = L53–L57 | bibcode=1985ApJ...293L..53A|doi = 10.1086/184490 | last1 = Audouze | first1 = J. | last2 = Lindley | first2 = D. | last3 = Silk | first3 = J. }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Epstein | display-authors = etal | year = 1976 | title = The origin of deuterium | doi = 10.1038/263198a0 | journal = Nature | volume = 263 | issue = 5574 | pages = 198–202|bibcode = 1976Natur.263..198E | s2cid = 4213710 }} point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.</ref> Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed.<ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061229074857/http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf|date=2006-12-29}}) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71–75 Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the ] (CMBR).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lerner | first1 = Eric | date = 1995 | title = Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data | url = http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf | journal = Astrophysics and Space Science | volume = 227 | issue = 1–2| pages = 61–81 | doi = 10.1007/bf00678067 | bibcode = 1995Ap&SS.227...61L | s2cid = 121500864 | access-date = 2012-05-30 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110715083205/http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf | archive-date = 2011-07-15 | url-status = dead }}</ref> He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:10<sup>5</sup> is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by ] and the ] and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Spergel | first1 = D. N. | display-authors = etal | date = 2003 | title = (WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters | journal = Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series | volume = 148 | issue = 1| pages = 175–194 | doi=10.1086/377226|arxiv = astro-ph/0302209 |bibcode = 2003ApJS..148..175S | s2cid = 10794058 }}</ref> The ] in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model.
===Links===
* Alfvén, H. "''''" (1984)
* Alfvén, H. "''''" (1983)
* Wright, E. L. "''''".
* Lerner, E. J. "''''". Lerner's reply to the above.
* Peratt, Anthony, "''''". ()
* Wurden, Glen, "''''". Los Alamos National Laboratory. University of California (U.S. Department of Energy). (General Plasma Research)
* IEEE Xplore, '''', '''18''' issue 1 (1990), Special Issue on Plasma Cosmology including A. L. Peratt, "Plasma cosmology", ''IEEE T. Plasma Sci.'' '''18''', 1-4 (1990).


==References and notes==
===Books===
{{reflist|colwidth=25em}}
* H. Alfvén, ''Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology,'' (Freeman, 1966).
* H. Alfvén, ''Cosmic Plasma'' (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 90-277-1151-8
* E. J. Lerner, ''The Big Bang Never Happened'', (Vintage, 1992) ISBN 0-679-74049-X
* A. L. Peratt, ''Physics of the Plasma Universe'', (Springer, 1992) ISBN 0-387-97575-6
]
]
]
]
]


==Further reading==
]
* ]:
]
:* "''Cosmic Plasma''" (Reidel, 1981) {{ISBN|90-277-1151-8}}
]
:* {{cite journal | last1 = Alfvén | first1 = Hannes | date = 1983 | title = On hierarchical cosmology | journal = Astrophysics and Space Science | volume = 89 | issue = 2| pages = 313–324 | bibcode = 1983Ap&SS..89..313A|doi=10.1007/bf00655984 | s2cid = 122396373 }}
]
:* , ''Laser and Particle Beams'' ({{ISSN|0263-0346}}), vol. 6, August 1988, pp. 389–398
:* , '']'' ({{ISSN|0093-3813}}), vol. PS-14, December 1986, pp. 629–638 (PDF)
:* , '']'' ({{ISSN|0031-9228}}), vol. 39, issue 9, September 1986, pp. 22 – 27

* ]:
:* "''Physics of the Plasma Universe''", (Springer, 1992) {{ISBN|0-387-97575-6}}
:* , '']'' ({{ISSN|0037-6604}}), vol. 68, August 1984, pp. 118–122
:* "Are Black Holes Necessary?", ''Sky and Telescope'' ({{ISSN|0037-6604}}), vol. 66, July 1983, pp. 19–22
:* , ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' ({{ISSN|0093-3813}}), vol. PS-14, December 1986, pp. 639–660 (PDF)
:* , ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' ({{ISSN|0093-3813}}), vol. PS-14, December 1986, pp. 763–778 (PDF)
:* , ''Laser and Particle Beams'' ({{ISSN|0263-0346}}), vol. 6, August 1988, pp. 471–491 (PDF)
* ] journal '']'': special issues on Space and Cosmic Plasma , , , , , , and
* ] journal ''Laser and Particle Beams'': Particle Beams and Basic Phenomena in the Plasma Universe, a Special Issue in Honor of the 80th Birthday of Hannes Alfvén, vol. 6, issue 3, August 1988
* Various authors: , ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227 (1995) p.&nbsp;3–11. ''Proceedings of the Second IEEE International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology'', held from 10 to 12 May 1993 in Princeton, New Jersey

==External links==
* Wright, E. L. . See also: Lerner, E. J. , Lerner's reply to the above.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Plasma Cosmology}}
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 15:04, 5 September 2024

Non-standard model of the universe; emphasizes the role of ionized gases
Comparison of the evolution of the universe under Alfvén–Klein cosmology and the Big Bang theory.

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important, if not dominant, roles in the physics of the universe at interstellar and intergalactic scales. In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of large-scale structures as dominated by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity).

The original form of the theory, Alfvén–Klein cosmology, was developed by Hannes Alfvén and Oskar Klein in the 1960s and 1970s, and holds that matter and antimatter exist in equal quantities at very large scales, that the universe is eternal rather than bounded in time by the Big Bang, and that the expansion of the observable universe is caused by annihilation between matter and antimatter rather than a mechanism like cosmic inflation.

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted Big Bang model. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology, as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe. Plasma cosmology is distinct from pseudoscientific ideas collectively called the Electric Universe, though proponents of each are known to be sympathetic to each other. These pseudoscientific ideas vary widely but generally claim that electric currents flow into stars and power them like light bulbs, contradicting well-established scientific theories and observations showing that stars are powered by nuclear fusion.

Alfvén–Klein cosmology

Hannes Alfvén suggested that scaling laboratory results can be extrapolated up to the scale of the universe. A scaling jump by a factor 10 was required to extrapolate to the magnetosphere, a second jump to extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump to extrapolate to the Hubble distance.

In the 1960s, the theory behind plasma cosmology was introduced by Alfvén, a plasma expert who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics. He proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders of magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe (see box). In 1971, Oskar Klein, a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended the earlier proposals and developed the Alfvén–Klein model of the universe, or "metagalaxy", an earlier term used to refer to the empirically accessible part of the universe, rather than the entire universe including parts beyond our particle horizon.

In this model, the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic electromagnetic fields formed by double layers, thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. Interaction between these boundary regions would generate radiation, and this would form the plasma. Alfvén introduced the term ambiplasma for a plasma made up of matter and antimatter and the double layers are thus formed of ambiplasma. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers will act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter. The idea of ambiplasma was developed further into the forms of heavy ambiplasma (protons-antiprotons) and light ambiplasma (electrons-positrons).

Alfvén–Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe, starting from an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets, or bubbles, of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe, which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed due to causality arguments and the rejection of ex nihilo models, such as the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays, X-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén–Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds". In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.

Plasma cosmology and the study of galaxies

Hannes Alfvén from the 1960s to 1980s argued that plasma played an important if not dominant role in the universe. He argued that electromagnetic forces are far more important than gravity when acting on interplanetary and interstellar charged particles. He further hypothesized that they might promote the contraction of interstellar clouds and may even constitute the main mechanism for contraction, initiating star formation. The current standard view is that magnetic fields can hinder collapse, that large-scale Birkeland currents have not been observed, and that the length scale for charge neutrality is predicted to be far smaller than the relevant cosmological scales.

In the 1980s and 1990s, Alfvén and Anthony Peratt, a plasma physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, outlined a program they called the "plasma universe". In plasma universe proposals, various plasma physics phenomena were associated with astrophysical observations and were used to explain contemporary mysteries and problems outstanding in astrophysics in the 1980s and 1990s. In various venues, Peratt profiled what he characterized as an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream models applied in astrophysics and cosmology.

For example, Peratt proposed that the mainstream approach to galactic dynamics which relied on gravitational modeling of stars and gas in galaxies with the addition of dark matter was overlooking a possibly major contribution from plasma physics. He mentions laboratory experiments of Winston H. Bostick in the 1950s that created plasma discharges that looked like galaxies. Perrat conducted computer simulations of colliding plasma clouds that he reported also mimicked the shape of galaxies. Peratt proposed that galaxies formed due to plasma filaments joining in a z-pinch, the filaments starting 300,000 light years apart and carrying Birkeland currents of 10 amperes. Peratt also reported simulations he did showing emerging jets of material from the central buffer region that he compared to quasars and active galactic nuclei occurring without supermassive black holes. Peratt proposed a sequence for galaxy evolution: "the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies". He also reported that flat galaxy rotation curves were simulated without dark matter. At the same time Eric Lerner, an independent plasma researcher and supporter of Peratt's ideas, proposed a plasma model for quasars based on a dense plasma focus.

Comparison with mainstream astrophysics

Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known physics into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with gravity playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in celestial mechanics and dynamics. To that end, both Keplerian orbits and Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and structure formation, while high-energy astronomy and particle physics in cosmology additionally appeal to electromagnetic processes including plasma physics and radiative transfer to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the x-rays and gamma rays. Due to overall charge neutrality, plasma physics does not provide for very long-range interactions in astrophysics even while much of the matter in the universe is plasma. (See astrophysical plasma for more.)

Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds. In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei. However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times ", i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist. Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe.

Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive X-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed. Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed. In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:10 is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP and the Planck satellite and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives. The acoustic peaks in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model.

References and notes

  1. ^ Alfven, H.O.G. (1990). "Cosmology in the plasma universe – an introductory exposition". IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. 18: 5–10. Bibcode:1990ITPS...18....5A. doi:10.1109/27.45495.
  2. ^ Peratt, Anthony (February 1992). "Plasma Cosmology" (PDF). Sky & Telescope. 83 (2): 136–141. Retrieved 26 May 2012. recount: It was described as this in the February 1992 issue of Sky & Telescope ("Plasma Cosmology"), and by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s, who describes it as a "nonstandard picture". The ΛCDM model big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard model" or "standard paradigm" of cosmology here, and here.
  3. Parker, Barry (1993). "Plasma Cosmology". The Vindication of the Big Bang. Boston, MA: Springer. p. 325. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-5980-5_15. ISBN 978-1-4899-5980-5.
  4. Parker 1993, pp. 335–336.
  5. "Hogan and Velikovsky". www.jerrypournelle.com. Retrieved 2023-08-24.
  6. Shermer, Michael (2015-10-01). "The Difference between Science and Pseudoscience". Scientific American. Retrieved 2022-03-28.
  7. Bridgman, William T., Stuart Robbins, and C. Alex Young. "Crank Astronomy As A Teaching Tool." American Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts# 215. Vol. 215. 2010.
  8. Scoles, Sarah (18 February 2016). "The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe". Motherboard. Vice. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
  9. ^ Alfvén, Hannes (1983). "On hierarchical cosmology". Astrophysics and Space Science. 89 (2): 313–324. Bibcode:1983Ap&SS..89..313A. doi:10.1007/bf00655984. S2CID 122396373.
  10. ^ H., Alfvén (1966). Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology. Freeman.
  11. ^ Kragh, H.S. (1996). Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Vol. 23. Princeton University Press. pp. 482–483. ISBN 978-0-691-00546-1.
  12. Alfven, H.O G (1987). "Plasma universe" (PDF). Physica Scripta. T18: 20–28. Bibcode:1987PhST...18...20A. doi:10.1088/0031-8949/1987/t18/002. S2CID 250828260.
  13. Klein, O. (1971). "Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology". Science. 171 (3969): 339–45. Bibcode:1971Sci...171..339K. doi:10.1126/science.171.3969.339. PMID 17808634. S2CID 22308581.
  14. Alfvén, H.; Falthammar, C.-G. (1963). Cosmic electrodynamics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  15. Alfvén, H. (1988). "Has the Universe an Origin? (Trita-EPP)" (PDF). p. 6.
  16. ^ Peratt, A.L. (1995). "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" (PDF). Astrophysics and Space Science. 227 (1–2): 3–11. Bibcode:1995Ap&SS.227....3P. doi:10.1007/bf00678062. ISBN 978-94-010-4181-2. S2CID 118452749.
  17. Alfvén, H. (1992). "Cosmology: Myth or Science?". IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. 20 (6): 590–600. Bibcode:1992ITPS...20..590A. doi:10.1109/27.199498.
  18. Alfvén, H. (1984). "Cosmology - Myth or science?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy. 5 (1): 79–98. Bibcode:1984JApA....5...79A. doi:10.1007/BF02714974. ISSN 0250-6335. S2CID 122751100.
  19. H., Alfvén (1981). Cosmic plasma. Taylor & Francis. pp. IV.10.3.2, 109. recount: "Double layers may also produce extremely high energies. This is known to take place in solar flares, where they generate solar cosmic rays up to 10 to 10 eV."
  20. Alfvén, H. (1986). "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics". IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. PS-14 (6): 779–793. Bibcode:1986ITPS...14..779A. doi:10.1109/TPS.1986.4316626. hdl:2060/19870005703. S2CID 11866813.
  21. Pebbles, P.J.E. (1993). Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press. p. 207. ISBN 978-0-691-07428-3.
  22. H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics(2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space ... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the ≈ 10. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared with gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)
  23. ^ Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P. (1978). "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars". Astrophysics and Space Science. 55 (2): 487–509. Bibcode:1978Ap&SS..55..487A. doi:10.1007/BF00642272. S2CID 122687137.
  24. ^ Siegel, E. R.; Fry, J. N. (Sep 2006). "Can Electric Charges and Currents Survive in an Inhomogeneous Universe?". arXiv:astro-ph/0609031. Bibcode:2006astro.ph..9031S. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  25. Alfvén, H. (1986). "Model of the Plasma Universe" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. PS-14 (6): 629–638. Bibcode:1986ITPS...14..629A. doi:10.1109/tps.1986.4316614. S2CID 31617468.
  26. ^ A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology: Part I, Interpretations of a Visible Universe, World & I, vol. 8, pp. 294–301, August 1989.
  27. ^ A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology:Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles, World & I, vol. 9, pp. 306–317, September 1989 .
  28. "A.L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Sky & Tel. Feb. 1992" (PDF).
  29. A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the plasma universe. I – Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. PS-14 (6): 639–660. Bibcode:1986ITPS...14..639P. doi:10.1109/TPS.1986.4316615. ISSN 0093-3813. S2CID 30767626.
  30. Bostick, W. H. (1986). "What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small". IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. PS-14 (6): 703–717. Bibcode:1986ITPS...14..703B. doi:10.1109/TPS.1986.4316621. S2CID 25575722.
  31. AL Peratt; J Green; D Nielson (20 June 1980). "Evolution of Colliding Plasmas". Physical Review Letters. 44 (26): 1767–1770. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44.1767P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1767.
  32. ^ E. J. Lerner (1991). The Big Bang Never Happened. New York and Toronto: Random House. ISBN 978-0-8129-1853-3.
  33. ^ AL Peratt; J Green (1983). "On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas". Astrophysics and Space Science. 91 (1): 19–33. Bibcode:1983Ap&SS..91...19P. doi:10.1007/BF00650210. S2CID 121524786.
  34. ^ A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies" (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science. PS-14 (6): 763–778. Bibcode:1986ITPS...14..763P. doi:10.1109/TPS.1986.4316625. ISSN 0093-3813. S2CID 25091690.
  35. E.J. Lerner (1986). "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies". Laser and Particle Beams. 4 part 2 (2): 193‑222. Bibcode:1986LPB.....4..193L. doi:10.1017/S0263034600001750.
  36. Frank, Juhan; Frank, Carlos; Frank, J. R.; King, A. R.; Raine, Derek J. (1985-04-18). Accretion Power in Astrophysics. CUP Archive. p. 25. ISBN 9780521245302.
  37. Colafrancesco, S.; Giordano, F. (2006). "The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M – T relation". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 454 (3): L131–134. arXiv:astro-ph/0701852. Bibcode:2006A&A...454L.131C. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20065404. S2CID 1477289. recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative relation for massive clusters."
  38. Audouze, J.; Lindley, D.; Silk, J. (1985). "Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements". Astrophysical Journal. 293: L53 – L57. Bibcode:1985ApJ...293L..53A. doi:10.1086/184490.
  39. Epstein; et al. (1976). "The origin of deuterium". Nature. 263 (5574): 198–202. Bibcode:1976Natur.263..198E. doi:10.1038/263198a0. S2CID 4213710. point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.
  40. Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 Archived 2006-12-29 at the Wayback Machine) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium", 1983, pp. 71–75 Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.
  41. Lerner, Eric (1995). "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data" (PDF). Astrophysics and Space Science. 227 (1–2): 61–81. Bibcode:1995Ap&SS.227...61L. doi:10.1007/bf00678067. S2CID 121500864. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-15. Retrieved 2012-05-30.
  42. Spergel, D. N.; et al. (2003). "(WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters". Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series. 148 (1): 175–194. arXiv:astro-ph/0302209. Bibcode:2003ApJS..148..175S. doi:10.1086/377226. S2CID 10794058.

Further reading

External links

Categories: