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 00:51, 12 November 2006 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,451 edits we need to clean this stuff up and contextualize it.← 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 editors453,897 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
|last1=Alfven | first1=H.O.G.
|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> which emphasizes the electromagnetic properties of ]s. A ] is an ] collection of ]s, possibly together with neutral particles or ], that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to ]s. The charged particles are usually ]s and ]s resulting from heating a gas. ]s and the ] are composed of plasma of different ]. Plasma physics is known to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.
|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 includes qualitative explanations for the evolution of the universe &mdash; from the ], to ] formation, to ]. Fundamental to its explanations are interpretations of many astrophysical phenomena by ] results from laboratory experiments. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are mostly 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>
|last=Parker
|first=Barry
==History==
|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.
] in a paper published in 1950 first proposed that ]s may play an important role in ]. Some 12 years later, ], a ], would hypothesize that the ] observed in the universe was due to an ] ] mixture of ] and ]..<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> The hypothesized material would form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occured at the boundaries. This hypothesis was developed independently of the rival ] and ] models which were the two most popular competing ]. Together with scientists ] and ], the Swedish research team developed what would eventually be termed the ] — a progenitor of today's fringe science proposal of "plasma cosmology".


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>
==Overview==
{{cite web
The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from ] are:
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill
#Since the universe is nearly all plasma, ]s are equal in importance with ] on all scales.<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. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance ''R<sub>E</sub>'' ((the position vector being '''R<sub>E</sub>''') with the earth's orbital velocity '''v'''. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If ''M'' is the solar and ''m'', the atomic mass, and ''γ'' is the constant of gravitation, this force is '''f''' = -''γMm'' '''R<sub>E</sub>'''/''R<sub>E</sub>''<sup>3</sup>. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge ''e'' = ± 4.8 x 10<sup>-10</sup> e.s.u.) is subject to the force '''f'''<sub>m</sub> = e('''v'''/''c'') x '''B''' from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is '''B'''. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10<sup>-4</sup> gauss, which gives f<sub>m</sub>/f ≈ 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>
| title = The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe
#An origin in ] for the universe is rejected,<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</ref> due to ] arguments and rejection of '']'' models as a stealth form of ].<ref>Alfven, Hannes, "" (1992) ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also </ref>
| last = Scoles
#Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the ] is not accepted as part of this evolution (see ]).
| first = Sarah
Plasma cosmology also differs from big bang cosmology ]. Its advocates emphasize the links between physical ] on ] and those that govern the cosmos. Plasma cosmology is explained as much as possible in terms of the basic behavior of a ] in the laboratory.<ref>H. Alfvén, ''Cosmic Plasma'' (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 90-277-1151-8. "... we explore Such experiments are important in building the theoretical foundation of plasma physics in general. They have ... once again demonstrated that science is basically empirical. Theory is of value only when developed in close contact with reality." (p.5)</ref> Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as ], ] and ] that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.<ref> (1) Peratt, A. L., "", ''Sky and Telescope'' vol. 66, July 1983, p. 19-22 (2) Browne, P. F., "" IEEE ''Transactions on Plasma Science'' (Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma) vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 718-739. "The implications also change for galactic astrophysics. The source of power for compact synchrotron sources is magnetic field energy, which is dissipated as synchrotron emission in regions near to the sites of charge acceleration. Acceleration of charges is possible throughout large volumes of space, but not uniformly throughout such regions. The emission from giant radio jets and radio lobes also represents dissipation of magnetic field energy. The source of magnetic field energy is kinetic energy of differential rotation associated with vorticity on a hierarchy of scales. There is then no need to invoke black holes, or indeed new objects of any kind." (3) Snell, C. M.; Peratt, A. L., "", ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227, p. 167-173, "Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed."</ref>
| 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-->==
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most ] or ], a small group of plasma physicists such as ] and ] have continued to promote and develop the approach. The level of detail in the development of big bang cosmology is not rivalled by that seen in plasma cosmology, evidenced by the quantity of ] published regarding the two approaches.{{citation needed}}
] 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
|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
==Alfvén's model==
|first=Alfvén |last=H.
] (1908-1995) made significant advances in the study of ] and their application to physics and astronomy]]
|title=Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology
Alfvén's model of plasma cosmology can be divided into three distinct areas.
|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" />
#The ], an empirical description of the Universe based on the results from laboratory experiments on plasmas
#]s (force free filaments), a proposed mechanism for the formation of ] in the ].<ref>Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., "" ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. '''Lerner, Eric J.''', "", ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702. "Force-free magnetic vortex filaments are proposed to play a crucial role in the formation of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and stars by initiating gravitational compression." (p.690).</ref>
#], based on a hypothetical matter/antimatter plasma.


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
===Cosmic plasma===
|last1=Alfvén |first1=H.
Following the work of ],<ref>Birkeland, Kristian ''The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition 1902-1903'' Vol. 1 "" Section 1 published 1908; Section 2 publ. 1913</ref> Alfvén's research on plasma led him to develop the field of ],<ref>Alfven, H., "" (1942) ''Nature'', Vol. 150, pp. 405</ref> a theory that ] plasma as magnetic ], and for which he won the ] in ]. However, Alfvén pointed out that magnetohydrodynamics is an approximation which is accurate only in dense plasmas,<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). See Table 5.3 "Survey of characteristic properties of plasmas and of single charges in high vacuum" (basis of table at ]s)</ref> like that of stars, where particles ] frequently. It is not valid in the much more dilute plasmas of the ] and ], where ]s and ]s ] around ] lines. Alfvén devoted a large portion of his Nobel address to attacking this "pseudo plasma" error.
|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
Alfvén felt that many other characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas. These include:
|last=Pebbles|first=P.J.E.
* ], <ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963) See 4.2.2. Similarity Transformations</ref>
|title=Principles of Physical Cosmology
* Birkeland currents, electric currents that form electric circuits in space,<ref>Alfvén, Hannes, "," IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., vol. 14, p. 779, 1986 (on p. 787). See also: Peratt, Anthony (1992), ''Physics of the Plasma Universe'', "Birkeland Currents in Cosmic Plasma" (p.43-92)</ref>
|publisher=Princeton University Press
* Plasma ]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>
|pages=207
* The cellular structure of plasma,<ref>Alfvén, H., "", Presented at the Particle Phys. Symp., Stockholm, 12 Jul. 1976</ref>
|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 ==
Alfvén and his colleagues began to develop plasma cosmology in the 1960’s and 70’s as an extrapolation of their earlier highly successful theories of solar and solar-system phenomena.<ref>H. Alfvén, "On the cosmogony of the solar system", in ''Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler'' (1942) (, , ).</ref> They pointed out those extremely similar phenomena existed in plasmas at all scales because of inherent ], ultimately derived from ]. One scale invariant in plasmas is ], so that plasmas at scales from the laboratory up to ] exhibit similar phenomena in a range of velocities from tens to a thousand ]s per ]. In turn this invariance means that the duration of plasma phenomena scales as their size, so that galaxies a hundred thousand ]s across with characteristic evolution times of billions of years scale to transient laboratory-scale phenomena lasting a microsecond.
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 />
While gravity becomes important at large scales, magnetic forces may also be important since even in neutral plasma (like almost all astrophysical plasmas) magnetic forces have infinite range, like gravity. For example, in the Local Supercluster of galaxies, the magnetic field is at least 0.3 microgauss over a volume 10 Mpc in radius centered on the Milky Way, so here the magnetic field energy density exceeds the gravitational energy density by at least an order of magnitude.<ref>Philipp Kronberg, "New Probes of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields by Radiometry and Faraday Rotation", J. Korean Astron. Soc., 37, 343 (2004).</ref>


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
Alfvén and his collaborators pointed to two plasma phenomena that have figured prominently in subsequent developments of plasma cosmology:
|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==
# The formation of ]. (See ])
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.)
# The exploding ], where charge separation builds up in a current-carrying plasma, leading to the disruption of the current, the generation of high electric fields and the acceleration of energetic particles. This phenomenon, which was first observed in the laboratory, was suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of ].


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.
===Force free filaments===
When currents move through any plasma, they create magnetic fields which in turn divert currents in such a way that parallel currents attract each other (the ]). Plasma thus naturally becomes inhomogeneous, with currents and plasmas organizing themselves into force-free filaments, in which the currents move in the same direction as the magnetic field.


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.
Such filaments act to pinch matter together in turn leads (for large enough filaments) to gravitational ] that cause clumps to form along the filaments like beads on a string. These gravitationally-bound clumps, spinning in the magnetic field of the filament, generate electric forces that create a new set of currents moving towards the center of the clump, as in a disk generator. This in turn creates a new set of spiral filaments that set the stage of the coalescence of smaller objects. A ] of structure is thus formed.


==References and notes==
The so-called ] in these filaments, as Alfvén and colleagues showed, may be important for the process of ], because they serve as a mechanism to transfer ] from the contracting clump. Without a process to transfer angular momentum, the formation of galaxies and stars would be impossible as ]s would prevent contraction. Plasma cosmology controversially asserts that such plasma processes can ultimately account for the ] of the universe and its filamentary organization of ]s, ]s, ], ]s and ]s. Subsequent to Alfvén’s work, highly magnetized filaments were discovered at several scales in the cosmos, from ]-scales at the center of the galaxy to supercluster filaments that stretch across hundreds of ]s.
{{reflist|colwidth=25em}}


===Ambiplasma=== ==Further reading==
* ]:
{{main|Ambiplasma}}
:* "''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


* ]:
As ] and ] from ] showed that ] and ] always come into existence in equal quantities, Alfvén and Klein in the early ] developed a theory of cosmological evolution based on the development of an "]" consisting of equal quantities of matter and antimatter. Alfvén theorized that if an ambiplasma was affected by both gravitational and magnetic fields, as could be expected in large-scale regions of space, matter and antimatter would naturally separate from each other. When small matter clouds collided with small antimatter clouds, the annihilation reactions on their border would cause them to repel each other, but matter clouds colliding with matter clouds would merge, leading to increasingly large regions of the universe consisting of almost exclusively matter or antimatter. Eventually the regions would become so vast that the ] produced by ] reactions at their borders would be almost unobservable.
:* "''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==
This explanation of the dominance of matter in the local universe contrasts sharply with that proposed by big bang cosmology, which requires an ]. (If matter and antimatter had been produced in equal quantities in the extremely dense big bang, annihilation would have reduced the universal density to only a few trillionths of that observed.) Such ] has never been observed in nature.
* Wright, E. L. . See also: Lerner, E. J. , Lerner's reply to the above.


{{DEFAULTSORT:Plasma Cosmology}}
Alfvén and Klein then went on to use their ambiplasma theory to explain the ] between ] and distance. They hypothesized that a very large region of the universe, consisting of parts alternately containing matter and antimatter, gravitationally collapsed until the matter and antimatter regions were forced together, liberating huge amounts of energy and leading to an explosion. At no point in this model, however, does the density of our part of the universe become very high. This explanation was appealing, because if we were at the center of the explosion we would observe the Doppler shifts from receding particles as redshifts, and the most distant particles would be the fastest moving, and hence have the largest redshift.
]

This explanation of the Hubble relationship did not withstand analysis, however. Carlqvist determined that there was no way that such a mechanism could lead to the very high redshifts, comparable to or greater than unity, that were observed. Moreover, it was difficult to see how the high degree of isotropy of the visible universe could be reproduced in this model. While Alfvén’s separation process was sound, it seems almost impossible for the process to reverse and lead to a re-mixing of matter and antimatter.

==Features and problems==
In the past twenty-five years, plasma cosmology has expanded to develop models of the formation of large scale structure, ]s, the origin of the light elements, the cosmic microwave background and the redshift-distance relationship.

===Formation of structure===
] and no requirement for ]. The diagram pertains to the cross-sectional views of two plasma filaments .. of width ~35 kpc and separation about ~80 kpc. (The axial extent is determined either by the length of the "micro-pinch" within the filament (in comparison to the analogy of laboratory filaments) or to the width of the double layer formed in the Birkeland current; these are typically comparable to the filamental width. (Peratt, 1986) ]]

In the early 1980's ], a former student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at ] to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament. The simulation began with two spherical clouds of plasma trapped in parallel magnetic filaments, each carrying a current of around 10<sup>18</sup> ]. In a video created from the simulation, the clouds begin to rotate around each other, spin on their own axes and distort their shape until a spiral shape emerges.<ref></ref> Peratt compared the various stages in his simulation with observed galaxy shapes, concluding that they appeared highly similar. Additionally, Perrat's forms had ] without invoking ].<ref>A. Peratt, Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, ''IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), '''PS-14''', 763&ndash;778 (1986). , PDF (1.7M)]</ref>

Peratt's simulation differs substantially from standard ] which rely on hierarchical structure formation of dark matter into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of such forms 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> Most astrophysicists accept dark matter 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 ], which is a measurement independent of the rotation curves, also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present independent of the measurements of galaxy rotation curves.<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>

In the mid-80s Lerner used plasma filamentation to develop a general explanation of the large scale structure of the universe. Lerner concluded that plasma cosmology could produce large scale structures while he argued that big bang cosmology did not accommodate the formation of very large structures (such as voids 100 Mpc or more across) in the limited amount of time available since the Big Bang.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS‑14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690‑702. E. J. Lerner, "The Case Against the Big Bang", in Progress in New Cosmologies, H. C.Arp, C. R. Keys, Eds., Plenum Press, New York, 1993, pp.89&ndash;104.</ref> Recent simulations, however, show rough agreement between observations of ]s and ''N''-body cosmological simulations 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> Many astronomers believe that achieving detailed agreement between observations and simulations in the big bang model will require improved simulations of structure formation (with faster computers and higher resolution) and a better theoretical understanding of how to identify voids and infer the distribution of invisible dark matter from the distribution of luminous galaxies.<ref>See ''e.g.'' P. J. E. Peebles, The void phenomenon, {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0101127}}.</ref>

Lerner's theory allows the mass of condensed objects formed to be predicted as a function of density. Magnetically confined filaments initially compress plasma, which is then condensed gravitationally into a fractal distribution of matter. For this to happen, the plasma must be collisional — a particle must collide with at least one other in crossing the object. Otherwise, particles will just continue in orbits like the planets of the solar system.<ref>E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS‑14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690‑702.</ref> This condition leads to the prediction of a fractal scaling relation in which the structures are formed with density inversely proportional to their size. This fractal scaling relationship (with ] equal to two) is a key prediction of plasma cosmology. Ten years ago, measurements from limited numbers of galaxy counts seemed to indicate a fractal scaling was possible.<ref>F. Sylos Labini, A. Gabrielli, M. Montuori and L. Pietronero, "Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale", ''Physica'' '''A226''' 195&ndash;242 (1996). B. B. Mandelbrot, ''Fractals: form, chance and dimension'' (W. H. Freeman, 1977) has earlier references.</ref>

In the big bang model, by contrast, the ] suggests the universe is ] on large scales, and structures form hierarchically: the smallest objects forming first followed by larger objects. Studies have long suggested that fractal scaling is true only on small scales, and that observations indicate that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by the fractal universe.<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 ], confirms this 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 the fractal model 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>

===Quasars===
Lerner developed a plasma model of ]s based on the ] fusion device. In this device, converging filaments of current form a tight, magnetically confined ball of plasma on the axis of cylindrical electrodes. As the magnetic field of the ball, or ], decays, it generates tremendous electric fields that accelerate a beam of ions in one direction and a beam of electrons in the other. In Lerner’s model, the electric currents generated by a galaxy spinning in an intergalactic magnetic field converge on the center, producing a giant plasmoid, or quasar. This metastable entity, confined by the magnetic field of the current flowing through it, generates both the beams and intense radiation observed with quasars and active galactic nuclei. Lerner compared in detail the predictions of this model with quasar observations.<ref>E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193‑222.</ref> This contradicts the standard model of quasars as distant ] (that is, ]s which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are ]).

===Light elements abundance===
The structure formation theory allowed Lerner to calculate the size of stars formed in the formation of a galaxy and thus the amounts of ] and other light elements that will be generated during galaxy formation.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "On the problem of big-bang nucleosynthesis", ''Astrophys. Space Sci.'' '''227''', 145-149 (1995). E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263.</ref> This led to the predictions that large numbers of intermediate mass stars (from 4-12 solar masses) would be generated during the formations of galaxies. Standard stellar evolution theory indicates that these stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of helium-4, but very little carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.

The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, led to a broader range of predicted abundances than ], because a process occurring in individual galaxies would be subject to individual variation.<ref>''ibid''</ref> The minimum predicted value is consistent with the minimum observed values of <sup>4</sup>He abundance.<ref>''ibid''</ref> In order to account for the observed amounts of ] and various isotopes of ], Eric Lerner has posited that ] from the early stars could, by collisions with ambient hydrogen and other elements, produce the light elements unaccounted for in stellar nucleosynthesis.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang", IEEE Trans. On Plasma Sci. 31, p.1268-1275.</ref>

===Microwave background===
It has long been noted<ref>R. H. Cuybert, "Primordial nucleosynthesis for the new cosmology: Determining uncertainties and examining concordance", ''Physical Review D'' '''70''', Issue 2, id. 023505 (2004) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0401091}}.</ref> that the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of helium-4 is the same as the amount of energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Plasma cosmology advocates argue that this correspondence is explained by the stellar nucleosynthesis of helium releasing the required CMB energy from the stars in the early stages of the formation of galaxies.<ref>E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456 469</ref> Lerner and others contend that the heavy dust in such galaxies would thermalize the radiation and re-emit it as far-IR. In order for such a model to yield the near-perfect observed ], Lerner, and Peratt and Peter independently hypothesized that the energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic radio absorption and the COBE data", ''Astrophys. Space Sci.'' '''227''', 61-81 (1995). A. L. Peratt, "Plasma and the universe: Large-scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation", ''Astrophys. Space Sci.'' '''227''', 97-107 (1995)</ref>

Since the hypothesized filaments would scatter radiation longer than 100 micrometres, the theory predicted that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than does radiation shorter than 100 micrometres. Lerner concluded that such absorption or scattering was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances: the more distant, the greater the absorption effect.<ref>E.J. Lerner, "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, pp. 63‑68, Sept. 20, 1990. E.J. Lerner, "Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26, 1993.</ref> Lerner also suggests this effect explains the well-known fact that the number of radio sources decreases with increasing redshift more rapidly than the number of optical sources.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang", IEEE Trans. on Plasma Sci. 31, p.1268-1275.</ref>

Lerner further developed this model by matching the isotropic and homogeneous blackbody spectrum of the CMB using the high-galactic latitude fraction of the data set from ].<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81.</ref> Unlike in the big bang model, there have not been any calculations of an angular power spectrum for comparison to the ] data by supporters of plasma cosmology<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> or any data that resolves the peak structure of the CMB anisotropy.

The plasma model of the CMB predicts that most of the observed radiation originates relatively close to us, in the "radio fog" of filaments, as opposed to the Big Bang view that the CMB originates at very high redshift and great distance. Possible support for this close origin of the CMB radation is presented by Lieu et al.<ref>R. Lieu, J. P. D. Mittaz and S.-N. Zhang "Detailed WMAP/X-ray comparison of 31 randomly selected nearby clusters of galaxies - incomplete Sunyaev-Zel'dovich silhouette" {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0510160}} </ref> in a study of the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect of 31 clusters of galaxies. In this effect, CMB from behind the clusters is slightly "shadowed" by hot electrons in the clusters. Lieu showed that the effect for these clusters was at most one quarter of that predicted. Lieu concluded that, taken at face value, the data indicated that there was "no strong evidence for an emission origin of the CMB at locations beyond the average redshift of our cluster sample (''i.e.'' ''z'' ~ 0.1)." The study is quite new, and has not yet been published in a ] journal.

Additionally, certain analyses of the CMB indicate that the ] ] is unexpectedly low and that the octupole moment is unexpectedly planar. Furthermore, there are various unexpectedly good alignments of the planes of the quadrupole and octupole moments with each other and with the ecliptic, with the direction of the cosmological dipole, with the equinoxes, and with the supergalactic plane.<ref>A. de Oliveira-Costa, M. Tegmark, M. Zaldarriga and A. Hamilton, "The significance of the largest scale CMB fluctuations in WMAP", ''Phys. Rev.'' '''D69''' (2004) 063516. D. J. Schwarz, G. D. Starkman, D. Huterer and C. J. Copi, "Is the low-''l'' microwave background cosmic?", ''Phys. Rev. Lett.'' '''93''' (2004) 221301.</ref> Eric Lerner has suggested that this corresponds to a model where the ] filament would shield us from more distant filament CMB radiation,<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81</ref> although he has not offered a detailed model predicting this phenomenon. Since the low-''l'' multipoles are the ones with the most systematic errors, some researchers have argued that these effects disappear when the removal of the foreground from the CMB is carefully accounted for.<ref>A. Slosar and U. Seljak, "Assessing the effects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP", ''Phys. Rev.'' '''D70''', 083002 (2004). .</ref> (''See'' ].)

===Redshifts===
] are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by ] in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. One of the key assumptions of plasma cosmology is that this observation does not indicate an expanding universe.

In a 2005 paper, Lerner used recent data on high-redshift galaxies from the ] in an attempt to test the predictions of the expanding-universe explanation of the Hubble relation.<ref>E. J. Lerner, "Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF" in Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, AIP Proceedings Series Vol. 822 (2006).</ref> The big bang model predicts the apparent surface brightness (brightness per unit apparent area) of galaxies of the same ] should decrease at increasing distance according to a specific ] calculated by ]. Lerner concluded that observations show that the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of six are constants predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the big bang. Lerner states that attempts to explain this discrepancy by changes in galaxy morphology lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense. Standard models of galaxies suggest, however, galaxy morphology is very different at high redshifts.<ref>M. Moles, et al., "On the Use of Scaling Relations for the Tolman Test" ''Astrophysical Journal Letters'' '''495''', L31 (1998) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=9802131}}.</ref>

Lerner's result disagrees with the results of Lubin and Sandage,<ref>A. Sandage and L. L. Lubin, "The Tolman surface brightness test for the reality of the expansion. I. Calibration of the necessary local parameters", ''Astronomical Journal'' '''121''', 2271&ndash;2288 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0102213}}. &mdash;, &mdash; II. The effect of the point-spread function and galaxy ellipticity on the derived photometric parameters, ''Astronomical Journal'' '''121''', 2289&ndash;2300 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0102214}}. &mdash;, &mdash; III. Hubble space telescope profile and surface brightness data for early-type galaxies in three high-redshift clusters, ''Astronomical Journal'' '''122''', 1071&ndash;1083 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0106563}}. &mdash;, &mdash; IV. A measurement of the Tolman signal and the luminosity evolution of early-type galaxies, ''Astronomical Journal'' '''122''', 1084&ndash;1103 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0106566}}. The authors state "We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion to within the combined errors of the observed depression and the theoretical correction for luminosity evolution. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the 'tired light' speculation for a nonexpansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the tired light model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma."</ref> astronomers at ] and the ], who performed similar tests on a high quality selection of well-calibrated lower-redshift (up to ''z'' of 0.92) galaxies and concluded they are consistent with an expanding universe. Another measure of the expansion of the universe, the ] of ] light curves, is also cited as evidence that the universe is expanding.<ref>G. Goldhaber ''et al.'' (Supernova Cosmology Project), Timescale stretch parameterization of type Ia supernova B-band light curves, ''Astrophys. J.'' '''558''', 359&ndash;368 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0104382}}.</ref> However, Lerner argues in the same paper that this is not the case.

Attempts to offer a plasma-based explanation of the Hubble relation have not been successful. While many plasma effects associated with ] of ] and ] or ] can give rise to frequency shifts, these effects tend to be too small and irregular to explain the Hubble relation, unless unrealistically high matter densities and isotropies of the plasma are assumed. Eric Lerner and his supporters now believe that the Hubble relation may well be a result of unknown physical phenomena, such as the ].

Most cosmologists believe that an expanding universe is supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in cosmology.

===General relativity and plasma cosmology===
It is sometimes argued that the finite age of the universe is a generic prediction of general relativity for realistic cosmologies. However, proofs of a universal singularity in the past all rely on additional hypotheses, which may or may not be true. For example, ] and ] argued that generating the thermal, isotropic cosmic microwave background necessarily implies a ] in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero.<ref>S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, ''The large-scale structure of space-time'' (Cambridge, 1973) especially §10.1.</ref> Their calculation of the density of matter and thus their conclusion rested on the assumption that ] is the most efficient process for thermalization. But in highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, as Lerner points out in his theory of the microwave background.<ref>E. J. Lerner, Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation, ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.'', '''20''', 935&ndash;8 (1992). For a comparison of Thomson and inverse synchrotron cross sections, see G. Ghisellini and R. Svensson, The synchrotron and cyclo-synchrotron absorption cross section, ''Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc.'' '''252''', 313&ndash;18 (1991) </ref> With such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity. The implications of general relativity for plasma cosmology have not been studied in detail.

===Future===
Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter Lambda-CDM model of the big bang.

==Figures in plasma cosmology==
The following physicists and astronomers helped, either directly or indirectly, to develop this field:

* ] - Along with Birkeland, fathered Plasma Cosmology and was a pioneer in laboratory based plasma physics. Received the only Nobel Prize ever awarded to a plasma physicist.
* ] - First suggested that polar electric currents ]l ]s] are connected to a system of filaments (now called "Birkeland Currents") that flowed along geomagnetic field lines into and away from the polar region. Suggested that space is not a vacuum but is instead filled with plasma. Pioneered the technique of "laboratory astrophysics", which became directly responsible for our present understanding of the aurora.
* ] - Claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the ] with the absorption occurring in narrow filaments. Postulates that ]s are not related to ]s but are rather produced by a ] self-compression process similar to that occurring in the ].
* ] - Developed computer simulations of galaxy formation using Birkeland currents along with gravity. Along with Alfvén, organized international conferences on Plasma Cosmology.
* ] - Radio astronomer, writer of "''Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery''" and "''Cosmic catastrophes''".

==Footnotes==
<div style="font-size:87.5%; -moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<!--See ] for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->
<references/>
</div>

==See also==
* ]: ], ]s, ], ], ]
* ]: ], ], ], ],
* The ] model, or the Alfvén-Klein model, is the original model of plasma cosmology.
*The ], Hannes Alfvén's model based in plasma
* ], a concept that includes elements of plasma cosmology but is much farther outside the mainstream.

==Links and references==
* 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)
* Marmet, Paul, "''''". 21st Century, Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
* Eastman, Timothy E., "''''". Plasmas International. (References, Parameters, and Research Centers links.)
*Heikkila, Walter J. "''''", from a ''''" Dedicated to Hannes Alfvén on 80th Birthday
* 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).

===Books===
* 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

]
]
] ]
] ]

]

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: