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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:56, 27 May 2007 editJoke137 (talk | contribs)3,814 edits revert to previous version, removing large number of POV edits← Previous edit Revision as of 16:38, 27 May 2007 edit undoBubuntu (talk | contribs)51 edits reverting to last reasonable version, continual POV violations removed, numerous unsourced comments removed, numerous inflammatory comments and superfluous comments removed, alternate cosmology removeNext edit →
Line 2: Line 2:
by ] laboratory results by a factor of 10<sup>9</sup>, he could extrapolate ] conditions. Another scaling jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required to extrapolate to the Hubble distance. <ref name=scaling>Hannes Alfvén, "" (1983) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'' (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 313-324.</ref>]] by ] laboratory results by a factor of 10<sup>9</sup>, he could extrapolate ] conditions. Another scaling jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump of 10<sup>9</sup> was required to extrapolate to the Hubble distance. <ref name=scaling>Hannes Alfvén, "" (1983) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'' (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 313-324.</ref>]]


'''Plasma cosmology''' is an ]<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> that is generally attributed to ] in the 1960s <ref>Helge S. Kragh, ''Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe'', 1996 Princeton University Press, 488 pages, ISBN 069100546X ()</ref> that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the interaction of electromagnetic forces on ],<ref>Alfven, Hannes O. G., "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition", IEEE ''Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.</ref>. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas based on ] of observations from terrestrial laboratories and in situ ] experiments to ] scales ] greater.<ref name=scaling/> His most famous cosmological proposal was that the universe was an equal mixture of ] ] and ] in the form of so-called '''ambiplasma''' that would naturally separate as ] occurred accompanied by a tremendous release of ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}} '''Plasma cosmology''' is a cosmology that is generally attributed to ] in the 1960s <ref>Helge S. Kragh, ''Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe'', 1996 Princeton University Press, 488 pages, ISBN 069100546X ()</ref> that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the interaction of electromagnetic forces on ],<ref>Alfven, Hannes O. G., "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition", IEEE ''Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.</ref>. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas based on ] of observations from terrestrial laboratories and in situ ] experiments to ] scales ] greater.<ref name=scaling/>


Plasma cosmology contradicts the current ] of ] that ]'s ] explains the ] on its ], relying instead on the further development of classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics as applied to astrophysical plasmas. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are generally ignored by the professional ] ].<ref>Plasma cosmology advocates ] and ], in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences", and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". </ref><ref>] writes in , "For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers."</ref> Plasma cosmology opposes the current widely-held belief that big bang explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its ], relying instead on testable hypotheses involving laboratory plasmas which are then compared to astrophysical plasmas. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are generally ignored by the professional ] ], which is composed mainly of believers in big bang cosmology.<ref>Plasma cosmology advocates ] and ], in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences", and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies". </ref><ref>] writes in , "For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers."</ref>


==Cosmic plasma== ==Cosmic plasma==
{{main|astrophysical plasma}} {{main|astrophysical plasma}}
Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career attempting to characterize ] for which he was awarded the ] in 1970. However, while ] is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena due in part to plasma's ubiquity, Alfvén held to a few ideas which have not been accepted by the ]. Chief among these is the assertion that ]s are equal in importance with ] on the ].<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space.... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10<sup>-4</sup> gauss, which gives the ≈ 10<sup>7</sup>. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)</ref> Alfvén came to this conclusion by simply extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales.<ref name=scaling/>{{Fact|date=April 2007}} While ]s are considered of interest to modern ] in many standard smaller-scale astrophysical structure formation models with ] speeding ] by transferring ] from the contracting objects, standard large-scale structure models do not normally consider the magnetic field large enough to aid in angular momentum transfer for ] in ].<ref>Colafrancesco, S. and Giordano, F. ''The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M - T relation'' Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 454, Issue 3, August II 2006, pp.L131-L134. recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value.... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative relation for massive clusters."</ref> Research in these issues is ongoing, but plasma processes are not considered in theoretical modeling to play a signifcant role in ] or ].<ref>See for example: Dekel, A. and Silk, J. ''The origin of dwarf galaxies, cold dark matter, and biased galaxy formation'' Astrophysical Journal, Part 1 (ISSN 0004-637X), vol. 303, April 1, 1986, p. 39-55. where they model plasma processes in galaxy formation that is driven primarily by gravitation of cold dark matter.</ref> Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for most ] including ], ], or the existence of the ].{{Fact|date=April 2007}} Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career attempting to characterize ] for which he was awarded the ] in 1970. However, while ] is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena due in part to plasma's ubiquity, Alfvén held to a few ideas which have not been accepted by the believers of big bang cosmology. Chief among these is the assertion that ]s are of greater importance than ] on the ].<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space.... The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10<sup>-4</sup> gauss, which gives the ≈ 10<sup>7</sup>. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)</ref> Alfvén came to this conclusion by extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales, as the properties of plasmas remain the same independent of scale, the same laws of physics apply to them.<ref name=scaling/>{{Fact|date=April 2007}}


Some of the more provocative proposals of Alfvén included qualitative explanations for ] using ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "" ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.</ref> These plasma currents were held by Alfvén and his supporters to be responsible for many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations. However, there remains no direct observational evidence of such large scale plasma currents and mainstream astrophysical explanations for large-scale phenomena do not include plasma current mechanisms. Some of the more provocative proposals of Alfvén included qualitative explanations for ] using ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "" ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.</ref> These plasma currents were held by Alfvén and his supporters to be responsible for many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations.


==Alfvén and Klein cosmologies== ==Alfvén and Klein cosmologies==
] .]] ] .]]
The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed in 1965 by Alfvén in his book ''Worlds-Antiworlds'', basing some of his work on the ideas ] first described at the turn of the century and ]'s earlier proposal that ]s played an important role in ]. In 1971, Klein would extend Alfvén's proposals and develop the "Alfvén-Klein model" of cosmology. Their cosmology relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic ] and ] that created the ] or ''meta-]'' as they preferred to speculate (see the ] for more on the history of distinguishing between the universe and the ]). This hypothetical substance that spawned the universe was termed "ambiplasma" and took the forms of proton-antiprotons (heavy ambiplasma) and electrons-positrons (light ambiplasma). In Alfvén's cosmology, the universe contained ''heavy'' symmetric ambiplasma with protective ''light'' ambiplasma, separated by ]s. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate with each other rapidly. ] ] would emanate from the double layers of plasma and antiplasma domains. The exploding ] was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of ]{{Fact|date=February 2007}}, ] and ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H., "", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "" (1986)</ref> The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed in 1965 by Alfvén in his book ''Worlds-Antiworlds'', basing some of his work on the ideas ] first described at the turn of the century and ]'s earlier proposal that ]s played an important role in ]. The exploding ] was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of ]{{Fact|date=February 2007}}, ] and ]s.<ref>Alfvén, H., "", (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 779-793. Based on the NASA sponsored conference "" (1986)</ref>

Ambiplasma was proposed in part to explain the observed ] in the universe as being due to an ] of exact ] between matter and antimatter.<ref>H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, ''Cosmic electrodynamics'' (Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). H. Alfvén, ''Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology,'' (Freeman, 1966). O. Klein, "Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology," ''Science'' '''171''' (1971), 339.</ref> According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred at the boundaries. Therefore, they concluded that we must happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly ]s rather than ]s. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature.


Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed<ref>Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) ''Trita-EPP'', 1988, 07, p. 6. See also Anthony L. Peratt, "" (1995) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227, p. 3-11: "issues now a hundred years old were debated including plasma cosmology's traditional refusal to claim any knowledge about an 'origin' of the universe (e.g., Alfvén, 1988).</ref> due to ] arguments and rejection of '']'' models as a stealth form of ].<ref>Alfvén, Hannes, "" (1992) ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also </ref> The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent ] as merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed<ref>Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) ''Trita-EPP'', 1988, 07, p. 6. See also Anthony L. Peratt, "" (1995) ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', v. 227, p. 3-11: "issues now a hundred years old were debated including plasma cosmology's traditional refusal to claim any knowledge about an 'origin' of the universe (e.g., Alfvén, 1988).</ref> due to ] arguments and rejection of '']'' models as a stealth form of ].<ref>Alfvén, Hannes, "" (1992) ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also </ref> The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent ] as merely a local phase of a much larger history.


==Further developments== ==Further developments==
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most ] or ], researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE ] that are co-edited by plasma scientist ].<ref>(See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in , , , , , , and 2007 Announcement here)</ref> A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, ], an independent researcher in ] and ], wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called ''The Big Bang Never Happened''. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other ]). This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the ] might not have a ]. However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of ] satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted. Researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE ] that are co-edited by plasma scientist ].<ref>(See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in , , , , , , and 2007 Announcement here)</ref> A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other journals. Additionally, in 1991, ], an independent researcher in ] and ], wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called ''The Big Bang Never Happened''. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other hypotheses which, unlike big bang, were testable). However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of ] satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.

⚫ ==Comparison to untestable big bang cosmology==
Plasma cosmology has been well-developed over the twentieth century and continues to offer a more coherent explanation for celestial phenomena than big bang and other alternative cosmologies.

Plasma cosmology offers reasonable and predictive explanations for many phenomena that stymie big bang and other alternative cosmologies. And unlike big bang, plasma cosmology is testable and verifiable as well as falsifiable. Many tests present themselves for falsification of electrical models, and in every case the burden of falsification is not met by its critics.

Many observed asteroids have craters so large that if they had been formed by impact, the asteroids would have been demolished utterly. Only electric discharge explanations for these craters conform to the available evidence. Some named asteroids with craters that defy impact explanations include Ida, Eros, Mathilda and Gaspra.


Many of these asteroids also exhibit crater chains, again, inexplicable by impact models without relying on impossibly-remote coincidences and ad hoc assumptions. Crater chains are an expected result of electric discharge machining, the hypothesized cause of most observed cratering of rocky bodies in space. Crater chains exist in many places in the universe, for example the Noachis Terra region of Mars and other regions of Mars, on Jupiter's moon Ganymede, on Earth in Spain, on Callisto and on Earth's moon.
⚫ ==Comparison to mainstream cosmology==
{{cosmology}}
Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models. In mainstream cosmology, detailed simulations of the ] of the universe, ], and fluctuations in the ], based on the principles of standard cosmolgy and a handful of free parameters, have been made and compared with observations, including non-trivial consistency checks. Plasma cosmology generally provides qualitative descriptions and no systematic explanation for the standard features of mainstream cosmological theories.


Other unresolvable problems exist within gravity-driven big bang cosmology. For example the abundance of bodies in the solar system with atmosphere of such density that gravitation is excluded from the realm of possible causes. Titan and Venus are two such examples of bodies with atmospheres more dense than gravity models allow as possible based on their perceived mass.
For example, the standard hierarchical models of galaxy and structure formation rely on dark matter collecting into the ]s, clusters, and galaxies seen in the universe today. The size and nature of structure are based on an initial condition from the primordial anisotropies seen in the ] of the ].<ref>See ''e.g.'' P. J. E. Peebles, ''Large-scale structure of the universe'' (Princeton, 1980).</ref> Recent simulations show agreement between observations of ]s and ] of the ].<ref>See, for example, the large-scale simulation of "universes in boxes" with the largest voids reaching such sizes. See also F. Hoyle and M. S. Vogeley, Voids in the 2dF galaxy redshift survey, ''Astrophys. J.'' '''607''', 751&ndash;764 (2004) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0312533}}.</ref> Most astrophysicists accept ] as a real phenomenon and a vital ingredient in structure formation, which cannot be explained by appeal to electromagnetic processes. The mass estimates of ]s using ] also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models.<ref>See ''e.g.'' M. Bartelmann and P. Schneider, Weak gravitational lensing, ''Phys. Rept.'' '''340''' 291&ndash;472 (2001) {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=9912508}}.</ref>


A host of atmospheric effects are also attributed to electrical phenomena. Aurorae are one example, but the entire host of meteorological phenomena on Earth can be attributed to electrical effects, with gravity an irrelevant side note. Saturn's "dragon storm" is yet another example of atmospheric phenomena that defy explanation by gravity models or big bang assumptions.
Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is ] on large scales ] required by plasma filamentation proposals.<ref>P. J. E. Peebles, ''Principles of Physical Cosmology'' (Princeton, 1993). P. J. E. Peebles, ''Large-scale structure of the universe'' (Princeton, 1980).</ref> The largest galaxy number count to date, the ], corresponds well to the mainstream picture.<ref>M. Tegmark ''et al.'' (SDSS collaboration), "The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", ''Astrophysical J.'' '''606''' 702&ndash;740 (2004). {{arxiv|archive=astro-ph|id=0310725}} The failure of alternative structure formation models is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter ] from a ] at scales larger than 0.5 ] ]<sup>-1</sup> (visible ).The authors comment that their work has "thereby yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis..."</ref>


Comets present special difficulties to gravity-only big bang believers. Cometary "knots" in plasma tails are expected in an electric universe, but are unexpected and inexplicable by the mainstream using "dirty snowball" models and sublimation by solar heating. Concurrance of CME's on the sun with passage by comets is another phenomena that is inexplicable and unexpected by standard cosmologists using big bang assumptions, but are entirely to be expected in an electric universe with electric stars and electric comets. Comets also split and shatter, another phenomenon that is unexpected by big bang cosmologists clinging to gravity-only models, but which is again expected by electrical theorists. Lack of water is another death knell for the dirty snowball comet model. Abundant hydroxyl is observed to come from comets. Hydroxyl is generated at the surface by elecctric discharge machining of the silicates on the surface of comets in the presence of the ionized hydrogen solar wind particles.
Light element production without ] (as required in plasma cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive ]s and ]s beyond that observed.<ref>J.Audouze ''et al.', Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements, 'Astrophysical Journal'' '''293''':L53-L57, 1985 June 15</ref><ref>Epstein ''et al.'', The origin of deuterium, ''Nature'', Vol. 263, September 16, 1976 point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.</ref> This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals.<ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 ) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Systhesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71-75 Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed. This could be resolved by proposing, as Alfvén did, that the bubble of matter we are in is larger than the observable universe. In order to test such a model, some signature of the ambiplasma would have to be looked for in current observations, and this requires that the model be formalized to the point where detailed quantitative predictions can be made. This has not been accomplished.


A partial list of other problems within big bang gravity-only cosmologies that are resolved by electric explanations follows:
Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the ] has been published since ] results were announced, explanations relying on integrated starlight do not provide any indication of how to explain the observed angular power spectrum of one part in 10<sup>5</sup> CMB anisotropies. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by ] and was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang to the detriment of alternatives.<ref>D. N. Spergel ''et al.'' (WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters", ''Astrophys. J. Suppl.'' '''148''' (2003) 175.</ref> These measurements showed the "acoustic peaks" were fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model and conditions of the early universe.


#ring nebulas (their very presence invalidates gravity-only big bang models)
Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang, and even its advocates agree the explanations it provides for phenomena are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.
#tornadic vortices in space (jets from active galaxies, et al)
#galactic cluster collisions (should not happen after big bang)
#shape and motion of galaxies (homopolar motor)
#gamma bursts (gravity insufficient, natural consequence of electric discharge)
#quasar ejection (ejected from parent galaxies, big bang redshift assumes vast distance separation and continual coincidental alignment)
#craters (flat-floored, steep-walled craters in chains and other configurations improbably or impossible by impact)
#dendritic ridges (present on many bodies, inexplicable by non-presence of water, natural consequence of electric discharge)
#discharge jets (from comets, planets, moons, stars, galaxies, present on every scale)
#sunspots
#earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, dust devils, geothermal activity, et al
#


==Notes== ==Notes==

Revision as of 16:38, 27 May 2007

Hannes Alfvén suggested that, by scaling laboratory results by a factor of 10, he could extrapolate magnetospheric conditions. Another scaling jump of 10 was required extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump of 10 was required to extrapolate to the Hubble distance.

Plasma cosmology is a cosmology that is generally attributed to Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s that attempts to explain the development of the visible universe through the interaction of electromagnetic forces on astrophysical plasma,. Alfvén developed his cosmological ideas based on scaling of observations from terrestrial laboratories and in situ space physics experiments to cosmological scales orders-of-magnitude greater.

Plasma cosmology opposes the current widely-held belief that big bang explains the origin and evolution of the universe on its largest scales, relying instead on testable hypotheses involving laboratory plasmas which are then compared to astrophysical plasmas. While in the late 1980s to early 1990s there was limited discussion over the merits of plasma cosmology, today advocates for these ideas are generally ignored by the professional cosmology community, which is composed mainly of believers in big bang cosmology.

Cosmic plasma

Main article: astrophysical plasma

Hannes Alfvén devoted much of his professional career attempting to characterize plasmas for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. However, while plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena due in part to plasma's ubiquity, Alfvén held to a few ideas which have not been accepted by the believers of big bang cosmology. Chief among these is the assertion that electromagnetic forces are of greater importance than gravitation on the largest scales. Alfvén came to this conclusion by extrapolating plasma phenomena from small scales to large scales, as the properties of plasmas remain the same independent of scale, the same laws of physics apply to them.

Some of the more provocative proposals of Alfvén included qualitative explanations for star formation using Birkeland currents. These plasma currents were held by Alfvén and his supporters to be responsible for many filamentary structures seen in astrophysical observations.

Alfvén and Klein cosmologies

File:Hannes-alfven.jpg
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995), winning the Nobel Prize for his work on magnetohydrodynamics .

The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed in 1965 by Alfvén in his book Worlds-Antiworlds, basing some of his work on the ideas Kristian Birkeland first described at the turn of the century and Oskar Klein's earlier proposal that astrophysical plasmas played an important role in galaxy formation. 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.

Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism. The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent expansion of the universe as merely a local phase of a much larger history.

Further developments

Researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science that are co-edited by plasma scientist Anthony Peratt. A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other journals. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community (along with other hypotheses which, unlike big bang, were testable). However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang; the level of interest in plasma cosmology has since fallen such that little research is now conducted.

Comparison to untestable big bang cosmology

Plasma cosmology has been well-developed over the twentieth century and continues to offer a more coherent explanation for celestial phenomena than big bang and other alternative cosmologies.

Plasma cosmology offers reasonable and predictive explanations for many phenomena that stymie big bang and other alternative cosmologies. And unlike big bang, plasma cosmology is testable and verifiable as well as falsifiable. Many tests present themselves for falsification of electrical models, and in every case the burden of falsification is not met by its critics.

Many observed asteroids have craters so large that if they had been formed by impact, the asteroids would have been demolished utterly. Only electric discharge explanations for these craters conform to the available evidence. Some named asteroids with craters that defy impact explanations include Ida, Eros, Mathilda and Gaspra.

Many of these asteroids also exhibit crater chains, again, inexplicable by impact models without relying on impossibly-remote coincidences and ad hoc assumptions. Crater chains are an expected result of electric discharge machining, the hypothesized cause of most observed cratering of rocky bodies in space. Crater chains exist in many places in the universe, for example the Noachis Terra region of Mars and other regions of Mars, on Jupiter's moon Ganymede, on Earth in Spain, on Callisto and on Earth's moon.

Other unresolvable problems exist within gravity-driven big bang cosmology. For example the abundance of bodies in the solar system with atmosphere of such density that gravitation is excluded from the realm of possible causes. Titan and Venus are two such examples of bodies with atmospheres more dense than gravity models allow as possible based on their perceived mass.

A host of atmospheric effects are also attributed to electrical phenomena. Aurorae are one example, but the entire host of meteorological phenomena on Earth can be attributed to electrical effects, with gravity an irrelevant side note. Saturn's "dragon storm" is yet another example of atmospheric phenomena that defy explanation by gravity models or big bang assumptions.

Comets present special difficulties to gravity-only big bang believers. Cometary "knots" in plasma tails are expected in an electric universe, but are unexpected and inexplicable by the mainstream using "dirty snowball" models and sublimation by solar heating. Concurrance of CME's on the sun with passage by comets is another phenomena that is inexplicable and unexpected by standard cosmologists using big bang assumptions, but are entirely to be expected in an electric universe with electric stars and electric comets. Comets also split and shatter, another phenomenon that is unexpected by big bang cosmologists clinging to gravity-only models, but which is again expected by electrical theorists. Lack of water is another death knell for the dirty snowball comet model. Abundant hydroxyl is observed to come from comets. Hydroxyl is generated at the surface by elecctric discharge machining of the silicates on the surface of comets in the presence of the ionized hydrogen solar wind particles.

A partial list of other problems within big bang gravity-only cosmologies that are resolved by electric explanations follows:

  1. ring nebulas (their very presence invalidates gravity-only big bang models)
  2. tornadic vortices in space (jets from active galaxies, et al)
  3. galactic cluster collisions (should not happen after big bang)
  4. shape and motion of galaxies (homopolar motor)
  5. gamma bursts (gravity insufficient, natural consequence of electric discharge)
  6. quasar ejection (ejected from parent galaxies, big bang redshift assumes vast distance separation and continual coincidental alignment)
  7. craters (flat-floored, steep-walled craters in chains and other configurations improbably or impossible by impact)
  8. dendritic ridges (present on many bodies, inexplicable by non-presence of water, natural consequence of electric discharge)
  9. discharge jets (from comets, planets, moons, stars, galaxies, present on every scale)
  10. sunspots
  11. earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, dust devils, geothermal activity, et al

Notes

  1. ^ Hannes Alfvén, "On hierarchical cosmology" (1983) Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, Jan. 1983, p. 313-324.
  2. Helge S. Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, 1996 Princeton University Press, 488 pages, ISBN 069100546X (pp.482-483)
  3. Alfven, Hannes O. G., "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.
  4. 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".
  5. Tom Van Flandern writes in The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, "For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers."
  6. 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, which gives the ≈ 10. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)
  7. Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.
  8. 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)
  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., Alfvén, 1988).
  10. Alfvén, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600. See also
  11. (See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2003, and 2007 Announcement 2007 here)

Further reading

  • Alfvén, Hannes:
  • Peratt, Anthony:

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
Categories: