Jump to content

Plasma cosmology: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 99: Line 99:
The truth is that we have no real idea of the relationship between matter, mass, and gravity. It is our ignorance of this relationship that has permitted the big bang theory to flourish and has created the “problem” of missing mass. Dark matter was invented to rescue a gravity-driven universe and to make the big bang work, even if the theory requires “creation from nothing" and must violate, in its first principles, every fundamental law of physics.
The truth is that we have no real idea of the relationship between matter, mass, and gravity. It is our ignorance of this relationship that has permitted the big bang theory to flourish and has created the “problem” of missing mass. Dark matter was invented to rescue a gravity-driven universe and to make the big bang work, even if the theory requires “creation from nothing" and must violate, in its first principles, every fundamental law of physics.


Is there an alternative? Yes, plasma cosmologists are waiting in the wings for working scientists to tire of the theorists’ mathematical escapades, and to think first of the things we actually know. Grant the role of electricity on a galactic scale, and the case for dark matter evaporates. Plasma physicists have successfully demonstrated the formation and dynamics of the classic spiral shape (spiral galaxy) in laboratory electrical discharges. And observations of magnetic fields in spiral galaxies match the laboratory forms, which are known to be scaleable over more than 14 orders of magnitude. The magnetic fields trace the electric currents flowing along the spiral arms of galaxies. Electromagnetic forces alone can thus produce the classic structure and rotation of ubiquitous, magnificent galactic formations. No dark matter required! [52]
Is there an alternative? Yes, plasma cosmologists are waiting in the wings for working scientists to tire of the theorists’ mathematical escapades, and to think first of the things we actually know. Grant the role of electricity on a galactic scale, and the case for dark matter evaporates. Plasma physicists have successfully demonstrated the formation and dynamics of the classic spiral shape (spiral galaxy) in laboratory electrical discharges. And observations of magnetic fields in spiral galaxies match the laboratory forms, which are known to be scaleable over more than 14 orders of magnitude. The magnetic fields trace the electric currents flowing along the spiral arms of galaxies. Electromagnetic forces alone can thus produce the classic structure and rotation of ubiquitous, magnificent galactic formations. No dark matter required!

[http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061221darkmatter.htm]


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 23:23, 21 December 2006

Template:Totallydisputed

Cosmic Triple Jump. Hannes Alfvén suggested that by scaling laboratory plasma experiment results by a factor of 109 extrapolates to magnetospheric conditions. Another scaling jump of 109 extrapolates to galactic conditions, and a third jump of 109 extrapolates to the Hubble distance. [1]

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology[2] which emphasizes the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology includes qualitative explanations for the evolution of the universe fundamental to which are interpretations of many astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from plasma 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 cosmology community.[3][4]

History

Kristian Birkeland. The year 1996 marked the Centennial Celebration of the founding of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, which may be traced to the research of Kristian Birkeland published in 1896. Birkeland formulated a theory about a plasma-filled universe populated with systems of nebula (galaxies)[5]

Writing in 2003 in the 6th Special Issue of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, guest editor and plasma cosmology enthusiast Anthony Peratt wrote that there have been many who have helped pioneer plasma cosmology,[6] including Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, P. A. M. Dirac, Karl G. Jansky, Grote Reber, Edward. V. Appleton, and Hannes Alfvén.

Oskar Klein in a paper published in 1950 first proposed that astrophysical plasmas may play an important role in galaxy formation. Some 12 years later, Hannes Alfvén, a Nobel laureate in physics, would hypothesize that the baryon asymmetry observed in the universe was due to an initial condition ambiplasma mixture of matter and antimatter.[7] The hypothesized substance would form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred at the boundaries. It was proposed by Alfvén, therefore, that we happened to live in one of the pockets that contained mostly baryons rather than antibaryons. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature. The ambiplasma hypothesis was developed independently of the rival Big Bang and steady state models which were the two most popular competing cosmologies. Together with scientists Per Carlqvist and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, the Swedish research team developed what would eventually be termed the Alfvén-Klein model — a progenitor of today's nonstandard proposal of "plasma cosmology".

Overview

Plasma cosmology advocates posit that the most important feature of the universe is astrophysical plasma. While plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena due in part to plasma's ubiquity, the basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

  1. Electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[8].
  2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[9] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[10]
  3. While the universe is assumed to evolve and change through time, a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behavior of a plasma in the laboratory.[11] Proponents contrast this with features of the big bang theory such as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not yet been detectable in laboratory experiments.[12]

While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science that are co-edited by plasma cosmology proponent Anthony Peratt,[13]; the next Special Issue is due in Nov 2007.[14] Papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s.

Alfvén's cosmological hypotheses

File:Hannes-alfven.jpg
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995) made significant advances in the study of plasmas and their application to physics and astronomy

Alfvén's hypotheses regarding cosmology can be divided into three distinct areas.

  1. The cosmic plasma, an empirical description of the Universe based on the results from laboratory experiments on plasmas
  2. Birkeland currents (force free filaments), a proposed mechanism for the formation of large scale structure in the universe.[15]
  3. ambiplasma theory, based on a hypothetical matter/antimatter plasma.

Cosmic plasma

Alfvén felt that many characteristics of plasmas played a more significant role in cosmic plasmas. These include:

Alfvén and his colleagues described the possibility of extrapolating to larger scales from their theories of solar and solar-system phenomena.[citation needed] Relying on inherent plasma scaling properties, they extrapolated, for example, that the duration of plasma phenomena scales as size, so that galaxies a hundred thousand light years across with characteristic evolution times of billions of years were associated by them with transient laboratory-scale phenomena lasting a microsecond.[citation needed]

Alfvén and his collaborators pointed to two plasma phenomena that have figured prominently in subsequent developments of plasma cosmology:

  1. The formation of force-free filaments. (See section below)
  2. The exploding double layer. This phenomenon, which was first observed in the laboratory, was suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays.[citation needed]

Force free filaments

Plasma cosmology advocates controversially assert that such plasma processes can ultimately account for the large-scale structure of the universe and its filamentary organization of clusters and superclusters.[citation needed] These filaments are attributed by advocates to the pinch effect associated with a plasma's magnetic field concentrating the plasma and leading to gravitational instabilities that cause a hierarchy of structure to form.[citation needed]

Magnetic fields do play a role in many standard smaller-scale astrophysical structure formation models with magnetic braking speeding gravitational collapse by transferring angular momentum from the contracting objects. Without processes to transfer angular momentum, the formation of galaxies and stars would be impossible as centrifugal forces would prevent contraction. However, standard large-scale structure models do not normally consider the magnetic field large enough to aid in angular momentum transfer for virializing processes in clusters.[citation needed] Research in these issues is ongoing.

Ambiplasma

Main article: Ambiplasma

As matter and antimatter always come into existence in equal quantities, Alfvén and Klein in the early 1960s developed a theory of cosmological evolution based on the development of an "ambiplasma" consisting of equal quantities of matter and antimatter.[citation needed] Alfvén theorized that matter and antimatter would naturally separate from each other.[citation needed] When matter clouds in the model collided with 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 gamma rays produced by annihilation reactions at their borders would be almost unobservable. This explanation of the dominance of matter in the local universe contrasts sharply with the current explanation of big bang cosmology, which relies on an asymmetric production of matter and antimatter at high energy.

Alfvén and Klein then went on to use their ambiplasma theory to explain the Hubble relation between redshift and distance.[citation needed] 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.[citation needed] At no point in this model, however, does the density of our part of the universe become very high. 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.[citation needed] Also, the high degree of isotropy of the visible universe cannot be reproduced in this model.[citation needed] Additionally, Alfvén’s separation process does not allow for a re-mixing of matter and antimatter, leading asymptotically to a static universe without any evidence of past annihilations.[citation needed]

Features and problems

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

Formation of structure

File:Peratt-galaxy-formation-simulation.gif
Peratt's galaxy formation simulation[20]: Simulation of plasma in two adjacent Birkeland filaments of width 35 kpc and separation 80 kpc. The axial extent of the simulation is only 10 kpc, so the formation of a 3-d disk is not demonstrated by this calculation. Animated version

In the early 1980s Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory 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 1018 amperes. The clouds spin around each other until a spiral shape emerges. Peratt concluded that the shapes seen in the simulation appeared similar to observed galaxy shapes, and posited a morphological sequence that corresponded to Halton Arp's now-repudiated ideas that galaxies formed out of quasars ejected from AGN.[21] Perrat's spirals had qualitatively flat rotation curves.[20]

Peratt's simulation differs substantially from standard galaxy formation models which rely on hierarchical structure formation of dark matter into the superclusters, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. These models rely on observations that quasars are the cores of distant AGN, and that elliptical and spiral forms are the result of galaxy collisions. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.[22] 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 galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing, 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.[23]

In contrast to Peratt, Lerner accepts the gravitational explanation of galactic dynamics. He believes, though, that the "missing mass" is not in the form of exotic dark matter but rather ordinary matter that is hard to observe (baryonic dark matter).[24] Lerner has used plasma filamentation to propose an explanation for large scale structure. Lerner argued that his ideas, unlike the models in time-limited big bang cosmology, could accommodate the formation of very large structures (such as voids 100 Mpc or more across).[25] Recent simulations, however, show rough agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-body cosmological simulations of the Lambda-CDM model.[26] 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.[27]

Lerner's confined filaments initially compress plasma, which is then condensed gravitationally into a fractal distribution of matter.[28] This leads to a key prediction of a fractal scaling relation (with fractal dimension equal to two) in which the structures are formed with density inversely proportional to their size. Ten years ago, measurements from limited numbers of galaxy counts seemed to indicate a small-scale fractal scaling was possible.[29] However, mainstream 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.[30] The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, confirms this picture.[31] In the big bang model, the cosmological principle suggests the universe is homogeneous on large scales, and structures form hierarchically: the smallest objects forming first followed by larger objects, conditions that have been verified by observations.[citation needed]


Light elements abundance

In 1995, Lerner used his version of structure formation to calculate the size of stars formed in the formation of a galaxy and the amounts of helium and other light elements that generated during galaxy formation.[32] He predicted large numbers of intermediate mass stars (from 4-12 solar masses) would be generated during the formations of galaxies. Standard stellar evolution indicates that such stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of helium-4, but very little carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. The plasma calculations led to a broader range of predicted abundances than Big Bang nucleosynthesis, because a process occurring in individual galaxies would be subject to individual variation.[32] The minimum predicted value is consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). This mechanism is similar to one suggested by Audouze and Silk.[33] Audouze et al.[34] identify "two pitfalls in such schemes for ²H synthesis": excessive x-ray production and excessive lithium production. Epstein et al.[35] had already pointed out in 1976 that proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV, if they are intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed. Lerner (1989) 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 make it clear why his result contradicts theirs.

Microwave background

It has long been noted[36] that, if the helium-4 observed today had been produced by fusion of hydrogen, the energy released would be approximately equal to the energy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Plasma cosmology advocates argue that "primordial" helium was not produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis but in stellar nucleosynthesis in the early stages of the formation of galaxies, and that the energy released was subsequently thermalized and is now observable as the CMB.[37] In order for such a model to yield the near-perfect observed blackbody spectrum, Peter and Peratt[38] hypothesized that the stellar radiation is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. This model was later extended by Lerner.[39] In particular, Lerner was able to adjust the few free parameters of his model to match the spectrum measured by COBE within experimental errors and estimated that the isotropies expected in his model do not exceed those observed by COBE. There have been no improvements in the measurement of the blackbody spectrum since COBE, but the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP.[40] These measurements showed "acoustic peaks" which could be fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model. Although neither Lerner nor Peratt has published on this topic since the WMAP data became available, there is no indication in their previous papers how the detailed angular power spectrum of anisotropies could follow from the plasma model.

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.[41] 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.[42]

Redshifts

Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law 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 Hubble Ultra Deep Field in an attempt to test the predictions of the expanding-universe explanation of the Hubble relation.[43] The big bang model predicts the apparent surface brightness (brightness per unit apparent area) of galaxies of the same absolute magnitude should decrease at increasing distance according to a specific power law calculated by Tolman. 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.[44]

Lerner's result disagrees with the results of Lubin and Sandage,[45] astronomers at Caltech and the Carnegie observatories, 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 time dilation of supernova light curves, is also cited as evidence that the universe is expanding.[46]

While plasma cosmology supporters have supported alternative explanations of the Hubble relation including the Wolf effect,[47] CREIL,[48] and tired light mechanisms,[49] most cosmologists consider the expanding universe to be supported by the overwhelming preponderance of observational 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, Stephen Hawking and George Ellis argued that generating the thermal, isotropic cosmic microwave background necessarily implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero.[50] Their calculation of the density of matter and thus their conclusion rested on the assumption that Thomson scattering 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.[51] 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 generally considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang[citation needed], and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its advocates have complained about the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Cosmologists have argued 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.[citation needed]

The truth is that we have no real idea of the relationship between matter, mass, and gravity. It is our ignorance of this relationship that has permitted the big bang theory to flourish and has created the “problem” of missing mass. Dark matter was invented to rescue a gravity-driven universe and to make the big bang work, even if the theory requires “creation from nothing" and must violate, in its first principles, every fundamental law of physics.

Is there an alternative? Yes, plasma cosmologists are waiting in the wings for working scientists to tire of the theorists’ mathematical escapades, and to think first of the things we actually know. Grant the role of electricity on a galactic scale, and the case for dark matter evaporates. Plasma physicists have successfully demonstrated the formation and dynamics of the classic spiral shape (spiral galaxy) in laboratory electrical discharges. And observations of magnetic fields in spiral galaxies match the laboratory forms, which are known to be scaleable over more than 14 orders of magnitude. The magnetic fields trace the electric currents flowing along the spiral arms of galaxies. Electromagnetic forces alone can thus produce the classic structure and rotation of ubiquitous, magnificent galactic formations. No dark matter required!

[7]

Footnotes

  1. ^ Hannes Alfvén, "On hierarchical cosmology" (1983) Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 313-324.
  2. ^ 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 www.cosmologystatement.org – which has been signed by Peratt and Lerner – notes that "today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". The ΛCDM model big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard model" or "standard paradigm" of cosmology here, and here.
  3. ^ Plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, 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". [1]
  4. ^ Tom Van Flandern writes in The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, "For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies [including Plasma Cosmology] are ignored by astronomers."
  5. ^ Peratt, A. L. "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" (1995) Astrophysics and Space Science, v. 227, p. 3-11
  6. ^ Anthony L. Peratt, "Guest editorial sixth special issue on space and cosmic plasma" (2003) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec. 2003, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1, pages 1109-1111
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ 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 RE ((the position vector being RE) 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 RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = 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 10-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 107. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)
  9. ^ Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) Trita-EPP, 1988, 07, p. 6. See also Anthony L. Peratt, "Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology" (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., Alfven, 1988).
  10. ^ Alfven, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also [2]
  11. ^ H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 90-277-1151-8. "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)
  12. ^ (1) Peratt, A. L., "Are black holes necessary?", Sky and Telescope vol. 66, July 1983, p. 19-22 (2) Browne, P. F., "Magnetic vortex tubes in astrophysics" 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., "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies", 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."
  13. ^ (See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, and 2003)
  14. ^ Announcement [2007 here]
  15. ^ Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. Lerner, Eric J., "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Scale Invariants, and the Fundamental Constants", 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).
  16. ^ H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd Edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963) See 4.2.2. Similarity Transformations
  17. ^ Alfvén, Hannes, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics," 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)
  18. ^ Alfvén, H., "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "Double Layers in Astrophysics" (1986)
  19. ^ Alfvén, H., "Is the universe matter-antimatter symmetric?", Presented at the Particle Phys. Symp., Stockholm, 12 Jul. 1976
  20. ^ a b A. Peratt, Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), PS-14, 763–778 (1986). NASA ADS Full text, PDF (1.7M)]
  21. ^ Galaxy anatomy
  22. ^ See e.g. P. J. E. Peebles, Large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton, 1980).
  23. ^ See e.g. M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rept. 340 291–472 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/9912508.
  24. ^ In Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened", he writes "If we adds up the warm plasma, which is sufficiently dim to be observable only as it absorbs radiation from more dim objects, the hot plasma, and the white dwarfs, we have enough matter to equal that which is inferred by the gravitational mass of cluster of galaxies. So there is no need for non-baryonic matter and there is no room for it either."
  25. ^ 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.89–104.
  26. ^ See, for example, the Virgo Consortium's 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, 751–764 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0312533.
  27. ^ See e.g. P. J. E. Peebles, The void phenomenon, arXiv:astro-ph/0101127.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ 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 195–242 (1996). B. B. Mandelbrot, Fractals: form, chance and dimension (W. H. Freeman, 1977) has earlier references.
  30. ^ P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton, 1993). P. J. E. Peebles, Large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton, 1980).
  31. ^ M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS collaboration), "The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Astrophysical J. 606 702–740 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0310725 The failure of the fractal model is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter power spectrum from a power law at scales larger than 0.5 h Mpc-1 (visible here).The authors comment that their work has "thereby [driven] yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis..."
  32. ^ a b 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.
  33. ^ Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [3]) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Systhesis of Deuterium" in Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium", 1983, pp. 71-75[4]
  34. ^ J.Audouze et al.', Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements, 'Astrophysical Journal 293:L53-L57, 1985 June 15[5]
  35. ^ Epstein et al., The origin of deuterium, Nature, Vol. 263, September 16, 1976
  36. ^ R. H. Cuybert, "Primordial nucleosynthesis for the new cosmology: Determining uncertainties and examining concordance", Physical Review D 70, Issue 2, id. 023505 (2004) arXiv:astro-ph/0401091.
  37. ^ E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456 469
  38. ^ Peter, W., and Peratt, A.L., "Thermalization of synchrotron radiation from field-aligned currents", Laser and Particle Beams Vol. 6, Part 3, pp. 493-502 (1988), and Peter, W., and Peratt, A.L., "Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments", IEEE Trans. on Plasma Sci., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 49-55 (1990)
  39. ^ E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic radio absorption and the COBE data", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 61-81 (1995) [6].
  40. ^ 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.
  41. ^ 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.
  42. ^ 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.
  43. ^ 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).
  44. ^ M. Moles, et al., "On the Use of Scaling Relations for the Tolman Test" Astrophysical Journal Letters 495, L31 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9802131.
  45. ^ 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, 2271–2288 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/0102213. —, — II. The effect of the point-spread function and galaxy ellipticity on the derived photometric parameters, Astronomical Journal 121, 2289–2300 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/0102214. —, — III. Hubble space telescope profile and surface brightness data for early-type galaxies in three high-redshift clusters, Astronomical Journal 122, 1071–1083 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/0106563. —, — IV. A measurement of the Tolman signal and the luminosity evolution of early-type galaxies, Astronomical Journal 122, 1084–1103 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/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 [surface brightness] 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."
  46. ^ G. Goldhaber et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Timescale stretch parameterization of type Ia supernova B-band light curves, Astrophys. J. 558, 359–368 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/0104382.
  47. ^ Lama, W. Walsh, P.J., "Optical redshifts due to correlations in Quasar plasmas" (Dec 2003) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1, p.1215- 1222 (Sixth special issue on space and cosmic plasma)
  48. ^ Moret-Bailly, J., "Propagation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics" (Dec 2003) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1, p.1215- 1222 (Sixth special issue on space and cosmic plasma)
  49. ^ Halton Arp, "Comments on tired-light mechanisms" (Feb 1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume: 18, Issue: 1, Pages: 56-60 (Special issue, Cosmology in the plasma universe) and Paul Marmet, "Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Objects" (Feb 1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume: 18, Issue: 1, Pages: 56-60 (Special issue, Cosmology in the plasma universe)
  50. ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large-scale structure of space-time (Cambridge, 1973) especially §10.1.
  51. ^ E. J. Lerner, Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., 20, 935–8 (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, 313–18 (1991) NASA ADS



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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=95819506"