Jump to content

Plasma cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ජපස (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 28 March 2006 (the construct is invented. Read the archives.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Totallydisputed

Plasma Universe and plasma cosmology. Hannes Alfvén urged the application of laboratory and magnetospheric data, and Anthony Peratt of large-scale particle-in-cell simulations, to non-in-situ space regions. Together with direct observation of interstellar and intergalactic plasma phenomenon, this leads them to predict a knowledge expansion about the universe, and a backflow of information about laboratory plasmas. (Click image to enlarge)

Plasma cosmology is a cosmological model which emphasizes the electromagnetic properties of astrophysical plasmas. Plasma cosmology advocates have proposed explanations for the evolution of the universe — from the cosmic microwave background, to galaxy formation, to large scale structure. Plasma cosmology often interprets astrophysical phenomena by scaling results from laboratory experiments. Plasma cosmology is considered to be a non-standard cosmology. [1]

A plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. The stars and the space between them are made up of plasma. Plasma physics is known to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

Overview

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology are:

  1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[2]
  2. Since we never see effects without causes, we have no reason to assume an origin in time for the universe — an effect without a cause.
  3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well.

Plasma cosmology also differs from big bang cosmology methodologically. Its advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos. Plasma cosmology is explained as much as possible in terms of known physics [3], using the theoretical and experimental results of laboratory plasma physics in cosmological applications. Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.

Plasma cosmology was first developed by Swedish physicist Hannes Alfvén together with Oskar Klein, Per Carlqvist and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar beginning in 1962.[4] Alfvén, a recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, is well-respected in the scientific community as the founder of modern plasma physics and the inventor of magnetohydrodynamics. While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small group of plasma physicists such as Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner have continued to promote and develop the approach. These physicists have proposed theories and hypotheses which explain the basic features of the universe with models that rely on plasma physics. Although their theories are not accepted by the majority of cosmologists, proponents have argued that they explain observations more easily, without introducing the "new physics" seen in the big bang theory.[5] The level of detail in the development of big bang cosmology is not rivalled by that seen in plasma cosmology, evidenced simply by the quantity of scientific papers published regarding either approach.

Alfvén's model

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 model of plasma 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. Force free filaments (Birkeland currents), a proposed mechanism for the formation of large scale structure in the universe.[6]
  3. ambiplasma theory, based on a hypothetical matter/antimatter plasma.

Cosmic Plasma

Following the work of Kristian Birkeland, Alfvén's research on plasma led him to develop the field of magnetohydrodynamics, a theory that mathematically models plasma as magnetic fluid, and for which he won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1970. However, Alfvén pointed out that magnetohydrodynamics is an approximation which is accurate only in dense plasmas, like that of stars, where particles collide frequently. It is not valid in the much more dilute plasmas of the interstellar medium and intergalactic medium, where electrons and ions circle around magnetic field lines. Alfvén devoted a large portion of his Nobel address to attacking this “pseudo plasma” error.

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

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.[7] They pointed out those extremely similar phenomena existed in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws. One scale invariant in plasmas is velocity, so that plasmas at scales from the laboratory up to supercluster of galaxies exhibit similar phenomena in a range of velocities from tens to a thousand kilometers per second. In turn this invariance means that the duration of plasma phenomena scales as their size, so that galaxies a hundred thousand light years across with characteristic evolution times of billions of years scale to transient laboratory-scale phenomena lasting a microsecond.

While gravity becomes important at large scales, electromagnetic forces sometimes dominate cosmic processes. Magnetic forces are particularly 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.[8]

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, 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 cosmic rays.

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 pinch effect). 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.

Such filaments act to pinch matter together in turn leads (for large enough filaments) to gravitational instabilities 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 hierarchy of structure is thus formed.

The so-called magnetic braking in these filaments, as Alfvén and colleagues showed, may be important for the process of gravitational collapse, because they serve as a mechanism to transfer angular momentum from the contracting clump. Without a process to transfer angular momentum, the formation of galaxies and stars would be impossible as centrifugal forces would prevent contraction. Plasma cosmology advocates claim that such plasma processes can ultimately account for the large-scale structure of the universe and its filamentary organization of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, stars and planets. Subsequent to Alfvén’s work, highly magnetized filaments were discovered at several scales in the cosmos, from parsec-scales at the center of the galaxy to supercluster filaments that stretch across hundreds of megaparsecs.

Ambiplasma

Main article: Ambiplasma

As theoretical considerations and experimental evidence from particle physics showed that 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. 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 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 that proposed by big bang cosmology, which requires a asymmetric production of matter and antimatter at high energy. (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 asymmetric matter-antimatter production has never been observed in nature.

Alfvén and Klein then went on to use their ambiplasma theory to explain the Hubble relation between redshift 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, 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: Single frame stills of plasma in the simulation of two adjacent Birkeland filaments, that feature flat rotation curves and no requirement for dark matter. [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) [Animated version]

In the early 1980’s Peratt, a former 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. 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.[9] Peratt compared the various stages in his simulation with observed galaxy shapes, concluding that they appeared highly similar. Additionally, Perrat's forms had flat rotation curves without invoking dark matter.[10]

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. The size and nature of such forms are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background.[11] 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.[12]

In the mid-80’s Lerner used plasma filamentation to develop a general explanation of the large scale structure of the universe. Lerner concluded that plasma cosmology can easily produce large scale structures while he argued that big bang cosmology has difficulty accommodating the formation of very large structures (such as voids 100 Mpc or more across) in the limited amount of time available since the hypothesized origin of the universe.[13] Recent simulations, however, show rough agreement between observations of galaxy surveys and N-body cosmological simulations of the ΛCDM model.[14] 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.[15]

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.[16] 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 fractal dimension equal to two) is a key prediction of plasma cosmology. Fractal scaling has been borne out by some studies of the galaxy number counts.[17]

In the big bang model, by contrast, the cosmological principle suggests the universe is homogeneous 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.[18] The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, confirms this picture.[19]

Quasars

Lerner developed a plasma model of quasars based on the dense plasma focus 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 plasmoid, 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 a 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.[20] This contradicts the standard model of quasars as distant active galactic nuclei (that is, supermassive black holes which are illuminated by radiation from the luminous matter they are accreting).

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 helium and other light elements that will be generated during galaxy formation.[21] 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 big bang nucleosynthesis, because a process occurring in individual galaxies would be subject to individual variation.[22] The minimum predicted value is consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance.[23] In order to account for the observed amounts of deuterium and various isotopes of lithium, plasma cosmology advocates have posited that cosmic rays from the early stars could, by collisions with ambient hydrogen and other elements, produce the light elements unaccounted for in stellar nucleosynthesis.[24]

Microwave background

It has long been noted[25] 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 claim 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. 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 blackbody spectrum, 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.[26]

Since the hypothesized filaments would scatter radiation longer than 100 microns, 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 microns. 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.[27] 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.[28]

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 COBE.[29] Unlike in the big bang model, plasma cosmology advocates have not calculated an angular power spectrum for comparison to the WMAP data[30] 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. [31] 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 peer reviewed journal.

Additionally, certain analyses of the CMB indicate that the quadrupole moment 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.[32] Eric Lerner has suggested that this corresponds to a model where the Local Supercluster filament would shield us from more distant filament CMB radiation,[33] 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.[34] (See Cosmic microwave background radiation#Low multipoles.)

Redshifts

Cosmological redshifts are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by the Hubble Law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. Advocates of plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates 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.[35] 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 due to 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.[36]

Lerner's result disagrees with the results of Lubin and Sandage,[37] 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.[38] 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 scattering of photons and ions or electrons 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. Some plasma cosmology advocates, including Lerner, now believe that the Hubble relation may well be a result of unknown physical phenomena, such as the tired light effect.

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, 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. [39] 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. [40] 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 ΛCDM model of the big bang. However, hundreds of scientists, including dozens from leading astronomical institutions, have urged that research into alternative cosmologies be funded.[41]

Figures in plasma cosmology

The following physicists and astronomers helped, either directly or indirectly, to develop this field:

  • Hannes Alfvén - 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.
  • Kristian Birkeland - First suggested that polar electric currents [or auroral electrojets] 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.
  • Eric Lerner - Claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the absorption occurring in narrow filaments. Postulates that quasars are not related to black holes but are rather produced by a magnetic self-compression process similar to that occurring in the plasma focus.
  • Anthony Peratt - Developed computer simulations of galaxy formation using Birkeland currents along with gravity. Along with Alfvén, organized international conferences on Plasma Cosmology.
  • Gerrit L. Verschuur - Radio astronomer, writer of "Interstellar matters : essays on curiosity and astronomical discovery" and "Cosmic catastrophes".

Footnotes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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)
  3. ^ H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 9027711518. "... we explore the basic behavior of a plasma in the laboratory. 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)
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ (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."
  6. ^ 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).
  7. ^ H. Alfvén, "On the cosmogony of the solar system", in Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler (1942) (Part I, Part II, Part III).
  8. ^ Philipp Kronberg, "New Probes of Intergalactic Magnetic Fields by Radiometry and Faraday Rotation", J. Korean Astron. Soc., 37, 343 (2004).
  9. ^ Galaxy anatomy
  10. ^ 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)]
  11. ^ see e.g. P. J. E. Peebles, Large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton, 1980).
  12. ^ See e.g. M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, Phys. Rept. 340 291–472 (2001) arXiv:astro-ph/9912508.
  13. ^ 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.
  14. ^ 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.
  15. ^ see e.g. P. J. E. Peebles, The void phenomenon, arXiv:astro-ph/0101127.
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton, 1993). P. J. E. Peebles, Large-scale structure of the universe (Princeton, 1980).
  19. ^ 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..."
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ ibid
  23. ^ ibid
  24. ^ 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.
  25. ^ 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.
  26. ^ 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)
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ 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.
  29. ^ E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81.
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ 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:astro-ph/0510160
  32. ^ 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.
  33. ^ E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, May 1995, p.61-81
  34. ^ A. Slosar and U. Seljak, "Assessing the effects of foregrounds and sky removal in WMAP", Phys. Rev. D70, 083002 (2004). astro-ph/0404567.
  35. ^ 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).
  36. ^ M. Moles, et al., "On the Use of Scaling Relations for the Tolman Test" Astrophysical Journal Letters 495, L31 (1998) arXiv:astro-ph/9802131.
  37. ^ 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."
  38. ^ 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.
  39. ^ S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The large-scale structure of space-time (Cambridge, 1973) especially §10.1.
  40. ^ 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
  41. ^ E. Lerner, "Bucking the Big Bang," New Scientist May 22, 2004; www.cosmologystatement.org

See also

Books

  • H. Alfvén, Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology, (Freeman, 1966).
  • H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 9027711518
  • E. J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, (Vintage, 1992) ISBN 067974049X
  • A. L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, (Springer, 1992) ISBN 0387975756
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=45906676"