Jump to content

Plasma cosmology: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 611843626 by 217.208.57.69 (talk) revert fringe nonsense
Undid revision 611860881 by AndyTheGrump (talk)
Line 30: Line 30:
Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known [[physics]] into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with [[Gravitation|gravity]] playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in [[celestial mechanics]] and [[dynamics]]. To that end, both [[Keplerian]] orbits and [[Einstein]]'s [[general theory of relativity]] are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and [[structure formation]], while [[high-energy astronomy]] and [[particle physics in cosmology]] additionally appeal to [[electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] processes including plasma physics and [[radiative transfer]] to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the [[x-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]s. In contrast to plasma cosmology, [[plasma physics]] is accepted as having influence on many astrophysical phenomena. Much of the matter in the universe is thought to be ionised or exist as [[plasma (physics)|plasma]], and it is this plasma that can generate [[magnetic field]]s. (See [[astrophysical plasma]] for more.)
Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known [[physics]] into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with [[Gravitation|gravity]] playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in [[celestial mechanics]] and [[dynamics]]. To that end, both [[Keplerian]] orbits and [[Einstein]]'s [[general theory of relativity]] are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and [[structure formation]], while [[high-energy astronomy]] and [[particle physics in cosmology]] additionally appeal to [[electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] processes including plasma physics and [[radiative transfer]] to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the [[x-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]s. In contrast to plasma cosmology, [[plasma physics]] is accepted as having influence on many astrophysical phenomena. Much of the matter in the universe is thought to be ionised or exist as [[plasma (physics)|plasma]], and it is this plasma that can generate [[magnetic field]]s. (See [[astrophysical plasma]] for more.)


Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the [[Galaxy formation and evolution|evolution of galaxies]]<ref name=Peratt1986 /> and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.<ref name=Alfven1978 /> In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat [[galaxy rotation curve|rotation curves]] of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for [[dark matter]] in galaxies and with the need for [[supermassive black holes]] in galaxy centres to power [[quasars]] and [[active galactic nucleus|active galactic nuclei]].<ref name=Peratt1986 /><ref name="Peratt1983"/> However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",<ref name=Siegel2006 /> i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10<sup>18</sup> Amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.<ref name="Colafrancesco2006" >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. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006A%26A...454L.131C&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=453e529efc17118] 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 [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."</ref> Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the [[cosmic microwave background]] and the nature of [[quasars]], have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the [[Big Bang]], the [[lookback time|time evolution of the cosmos]], and even the [[metric expansion of space|expanding universe]]; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.
Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the [[Galaxy formation and evolution|evolution of galaxies]]<ref name=Peratt1986 /> and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.<ref name=Alfven1978 /> In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat [[galaxy rotation curve|rotation curves]] of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for [[dark matter]] in galaxies and with the need for [[supermassive black holes]] in galaxy centres to power [[quasars]] and [[active galactic nucleus|active galactic nuclei]].<ref name=Peratt1986 /><ref name="Peratt1983"/> However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",<ref name=Siegel2006 /> i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10<sup>18</sup> Amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.<ref name="Colafrancesco2006" >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. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2006A%26A...454L.131C&amp;db_key=AST&amp;data_type=HTML&amp;format=&amp;high=453e529efc17118] 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 [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."</ref> Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the [[cosmic microwave background]] and the nature of [[quasars]], have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the [[Big Bang]], the [[lookback time|time evolution of the cosmos]], and even the [[metric expansion of space|expanding universe]].


Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without [[Big Bang nucleosynthesis]] which, in the context of Alfvén-Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive [[x-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]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 [http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1985ApJ...293L..53A&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf]</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> Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed.<ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Science'' Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf]) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71-75 [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983prhe.work...71A] Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the [[cosmic microwave background radiation]] (CMB).<ref>Eric Lerner. [http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data], ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', '''227''': 61-81, 1995.</ref> He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:10<sup>5</sup> is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by [[WMAP]] and the [[Planck satellite]] and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.<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> The [[Cosmic microwave background radiation#Primary anisotropy|acoustic peaks]] in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model.
Big Bang supporters claim Plasma Cosmology is at odds with standard explanations, including the need for light element production in the absence of [[Big Bang nucleosynthesis]] which, in the context of Alfvén-Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive [[x-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]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 [http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1985ApJ...293L..53A&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf]</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> Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances. The most obvious explanation is that the light elements, and possibly all elements have always existed, which completely eliminates the need for their "creation", unlike Big Bang Theory which is a creation-based theory, Plasma Cosmology is based on an eternal infinite unbounded model of the universe in flat E(3) Euclidean space. <ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Trans. Plasma Science'' Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf]) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71-75 [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983prhe.work...71A] Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the [[cosmic microwave background radiation]] (CMBR).<ref>Eric Lerner. [http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data], ''Astrophysics and Space Science'', '''227''': 61-81, 1995.</ref> He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMBR spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found. Although in Plasma Cosmology there is no need for any such explanation.

In reality CMBR is in itself neither proof nor disproof of any theorum. In 1924 Sir [[Arthur Eddington]] calculated the temperature of ambient starlight at 2.7 Kelvin, which was proven correct experimentally. CMBR was not initially a component of Big Bang Theory, although it was subsequently claimed as such after it's discovery.

Plasma Cosmology acknowledges the calculations made previously by Sir Arthur Eddington, which was precisely correct from the start, (unlike George Gamow's predictions). [[George Gamow]] had initially predicted that the temperature of the afterglow of the Big Bang to be 50 Kelvin, several orders of magnitude above the actual 2.7 Kelvin.

==Plasma Induced Redshift==

Research at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics has revealed the physical interaction
which finally solved the problem of non-Doppler redshift.<ref>* Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, ''[http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html]'',A New Non-Doppler Redshift.</ref> Thus the problem of eliminating the need for expansion as an explanation for stellar spectral line redshift has now been fully realised, without sacrificing the Hubble constant (H0) component essential for estimating cosmological distances, a vital tool for astronomers given the severe limitations of parallax trigonometric measurement from a baseline of 2 AU,
which imposes an absolute limit of 100 Parsec on ground based parallax measurement.

The solution being Plasma Induced Redshift (PIR), whereby the observed propagation velocity of electromagnetic radiation is reduced in gases, an obvious effect which has been completely overlooked (or ignored). therefore the observed spectral line redshift is simply a result of photons interacting with stellar plasma.

A cumulative plasma induced redshift produces a linear increase in spectral redshift with a linear increase in distance, just as observed, therefore no unproven theoretical explanation is needed.

Plasma induced redshift was a primary missing interaction component required for a complete [[Plasma Cosmology]], and therefore fundamental to providing empirical proof of every aspect of the theorum.


==Further reading==
==Further reading==

Revision as of 19:47, 6 June 2014

Hannes Alfvén used scaling laboratory results to extrapolate up to the scale of the universe. A scaling jump by a factor 109 was required to extrapolate to the magnetosphere, a second jump to extrapolate to galactic conditions, and a third jump to extrapolate to the Hubble distance.[1]

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology whose central postulate is that the dynamics of ionized gases and plasmas play important if not dominant roles in the physics of the universe beyond the Solar System.[2][3][4] Consensus by cosmologists and astrophysicists strongly support that astronomical bodies and structures in the universe are mostly influenced by gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics, to explain the origin, structure and evolution of the universe on cosmic scales. As of 2014, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory.

Some general concepts about plasma cosmology have been attributed[by whom?] to Hannes Alfvén, who won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Physics for his other (unrelated) work in magnetohydrodynamics (MHD).[3][5] Alfvén proposed the use of plasma scaling to extrapolate the results of laboratory experiments and space plasma physics observations and scale them over many orders-of-magnitude up to the largest observable objects in the universe (see box[1]).

The term plasma universe is sometimes used as a synonym for plasma cosmology,[2] as an alternative description of the plasma in the universe.[4]

Alfvén-Klein cosmology

In the 1960s, the theory behind plasma cosmology was introduced by Alfvén, Oskar Klein and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar,[6][7] and Alfvén's 1966 book Worlds-Antiworlds.[8] Klein in 1971 extended Alfvén's Worlds-Antiworlds proposals and developed the "Alfvén-Klein model" of the universe,[9] or metagalaxy, an earlier term to distinguish between the universe and the Milky Way galaxy. In this Alfvén-Klein cosmology, sometimes called Klein-Alfvén cosmology, the universe is made up of equal amounts of matter and antimatter with the boundaries between the regions of matter and antimatter being delineated by cosmic electromagnetic fields formed by double layers, thin regions comprising two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. Interaction between these boundary regions would generate radiation, and this would form the plasma. Alfvén introduced the term ambiplasma for a plasma made up of matter and antimatter and the double layers are thus formed of ambiplasma. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate each other rapidly. The double layers will act to repel clouds of opposite type, but combine clouds of the same type, creating ever-larger regions of matter and antimatter. The idea of ambiplasma was developed further into the forms of heavy ambiplasma (protons-antiprotons) and light ambiplasma (electrons-positrons).[8]

Alfvén-Klein cosmology was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe, starting from an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter. According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred in the double layer at the boundaries. They concluded that we must just happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons, explaining the baryon asymmetry. The pockets, or bubbles, of matter or antimatter would expand because of annihilations at the boundaries, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed expansion of the universe, which would be merely a local phase of a much larger history. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed[10][11] due to causality arguments and the rejection of ex nihilo models, such as the Big Bang, as a stealth form of creationism.[12][13] The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays,[14] x-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.[15]

In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized Alfvén-Klein cosmology, writing that "there is no way that the results can be consistent with the isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation and X-ray backgrounds".[16] In his book he also showed that Alfvén's models do not predict Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background. A further difficulty with the ambiplasma model is that matter–antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons, which are not observed in the amounts predicted. While it is possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell is simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition does not lend itself to observational tests.

Plasma cosmology and the study of galaxies

Hannes Alfvén from the 1960s to 1980s argued that plasma played an important if not dominant role in the universe because electromagnetic forces are far more important than gravity when acting on interplanetary and interstellar charged particles.[17] He further hypothesized that Birkeland currents (here meaning currents in space plasmas which are aligned with magnetic field lines) were responsible for many filamentary structures and that a galactic magnetic field and associated current sheet, with an estimated galactic current of 1017 to 1019amperes, might promote the contraction of interstellar clouds and may even constitute the main mechanism for contraction, initiating star formation.[18] The current standard view is that magnetic fields can hinder collapse, that large-scale Birkeland currents have not been observed, and that the length scale for charge neutrality is predicted to be far smaller than the relevant cosmological scales.[19]

In the 1980s and 1990s, Alfvén and Anthony Peratt, a plasma physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, outlined a program they called the "plasma universe".[20][21][22] In plasma universe proposals, various plasma physics phenomena were associated with astrophysical observations and were used to explain extant mysteries and problems outstanding in astrophysics in the 1980s and 1990s. In various venues, Peratt profiled what he characterized as an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream models applied in astrophysics and cosmology.[21][22][23][24]

For example, Peratt proposed that the mainstream approach to galactic dynamics which relied on gravitational modeling of stars and gas in galaxies with the addition of dark matter was overlooking a possibly major contribution from plasma physics. He mentions laboratory experiments of Winston H. Bostick in the 1950s that created plasma discharges that looked like galaxies.[25][26] Perrat conducted computer simulations of colliding plasma clouds that he reported also mimicked the shape of galaxies.[27] Peratt proposed that galaxies formed due to plasma filaments joining in a z-pinch, the filaments starting 300,000 light years apart and carrying Birkeland currents of 1018 Amps.[28][29] Peratt also reported simulations he did showing emerging jets of material from the central buffer region that he compared to quasars and active galactic nuclei occurring without supermassive black holes. Peratt proposed a sequence for galaxy evolution: "the transition of double radio galaxies to radioquasars to radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert galaxies, finally ending in spiral galaxies".[30] He also reported that flat galaxy rotation curves were simulated without dark matter.[28] At the same time Eric Lerner, an independent plasma researcher and supporter of Peratt's ideas, proposed a plasma model for quasars based on a dense plasma focus.[31]

As an IEEE fellow of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society and guest editor of the journal Transactions on Plasma Science, Peratt supported the publication of a number of special issues dedicated to plasma cosmology, the last one appearing in 2007.[32] Additionally, in 1991, Lerner wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology titled The Big Bang Never Happened.[28]

Comparison to mainstream astrophysics

Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known physics into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with gravity playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in celestial mechanics and dynamics. To that end, both Keplerian orbits and Einstein's general theory of relativity are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and structure formation, while high-energy astronomy and particle physics in cosmology additionally appeal to electromagnetic processes including plasma physics and radiative transfer to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the x-rays and gamma rays. In contrast to plasma cosmology, plasma physics is accepted as having influence on many astrophysical phenomena. Much of the matter in the universe is thought to be ionised or exist as plasma, and it is this plasma that can generate magnetic fields. (See astrophysical plasma for more.)

Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[30][29] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 Amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe.

Big Bang supporters claim Plasma Cosmology is at odds with standard explanations, including the need for light element production in the absence of Big Bang nucleosynthesis which, in the context of Alfvén-Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed.[34][35] Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances. The most obvious explanation is that the light elements, and possibly all elements have always existed, which completely eliminates the need for their "creation", unlike Big Bang Theory which is a creation-based theory, Plasma Cosmology is based on an eternal infinite unbounded model of the universe in flat E(3) Euclidean space. [36] In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).[37] He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMBR spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found. Although in Plasma Cosmology there is no need for any such explanation.

In reality CMBR is in itself neither proof nor disproof of any theorum. In 1924 Sir Arthur Eddington calculated the temperature of ambient starlight at 2.7 Kelvin, which was proven correct experimentally. CMBR was not initially a component of Big Bang Theory, although it was subsequently claimed as such after it's discovery.

Plasma Cosmology acknowledges the calculations made previously by Sir Arthur Eddington, which was precisely correct from the start, (unlike George Gamow's predictions). George Gamow had initially predicted that the temperature of the afterglow of the Big Bang to be 50 Kelvin, several orders of magnitude above the actual 2.7 Kelvin.


Plasma Induced Redshift

Research at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics has revealed the physical interaction which finally solved the problem of non-Doppler redshift.[38] Thus the problem of eliminating the need for expansion as an explanation for stellar spectral line redshift has now been fully realised, without sacrificing the Hubble constant (H0) component essential for estimating cosmological distances, a vital tool for astronomers given the severe limitations of parallax trigonometric measurement from a baseline of 2 AU, which imposes an absolute limit of 100 Parsec on ground based parallax measurement.

The solution being Plasma Induced Redshift (PIR), whereby the observed propagation velocity of electromagnetic radiation is reduced in gases, an obvious effect which has been completely overlooked (or ignored). therefore the observed spectral line redshift is simply a result of photons interacting with stellar plasma.

A cumulative plasma induced redshift produces a linear increase in spectral redshift with a linear increase in distance, just as observed, therefore no unproven theoretical explanation is needed.

Plasma induced redshift was a primary missing interaction component required for a complete Plasma Cosmology, and therefore fundamental to providing empirical proof of every aspect of the theorum.

Further reading

  • "Cosmic Plasma" (Reidel, 1981) ISBN 90-277-1151-8
  • "On hierarchical cosmology", Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, January 1983, pp. 313-324
  • "Cosmology in the plasma universe", Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, August 1988, pp. 389-398 Full text
  • "Model of the plasma universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, December 1986, pp. 629-638 Full text (PDF)
  • "The Plasma Universe", Physics Today (ISSN 0031-9228), vol. 39, issue 9, September 1986, pp. 22 - 27

References and notes

  1. ^ a b Hannes Alfvén, "On hierarchical cosmology" (1983) Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 89, no. 2, January 1983, p. 313-324.
  2. ^ a b "Plasma Cosmology" (PDF). Sky & Telescope. February 1992. Retrieved 26 May 2012. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  3. ^ a b It was described as this in the February 1992 issue of Sky & Telescope ("Plasma Cosmology"), and by Anthony Peratt in the 1980s, who describes it as a "nonstandard picture". The ΛCDM model big bang picture is typically described as the "concordance model", "standard model" or "standard paradigm" of cosmology here, and here.[unreliable source?] Cite error: The named reference "statement" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b 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.
  5. ^ Helge S. Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe, 1996 Princeton University Press, 488 pages, ISBN 0-691-00546-X (pp.482-483)
  6. ^ "Matter-Antimatter Annihilation and Cosmology". Arkiv Fysik. 23: 187–194. 1963. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  7. ^ Cosmic electrodynamics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1963. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  8. ^ a b H. Alfvén (1966). Worlds-antiworlds: antimatter in cosmology. Freeman.
  9. ^ O. Klein, "Arguments concerning relativity and cosmology," Science 171 (1971), 339
  10. ^ Hannes Alfvén, "Has the Universe an Origin" (1988) Trita-EPP, 1988, 07, p. 6.
  11. ^ 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)"
  12. ^ Alfvén, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600
  13. ^ Alfvén, H. (March 1984). "Cosmology - Myth or science?". Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy. 5: 79–98. Bibcode:1984JApA....5...79A. doi:10.1007/BF02714974. ISSN 0250-6335.
  14. ^ Hannes Alfvén, Cosmic plasma. Taylor & Francis US, 1981,IV.10.3.2, p.109. "Double layers may also produce extremely high energies. This is known to take place in solar flares, where they generate solar cosmic rays up to 109 to 1010 eV."
  15. ^ 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)
  16. ^ P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (1993) Princeton University Press, p. 207, ISBN 978-0-691-07428-3
  17. ^ 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 10-4 gauss (10 nanoteslas), which gives the [ratio of the magnetic force to the force of gravity] ≈ 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)
  18. ^ a b Alfvén, H.; Carlqvist, P., "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars"Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509.
  19. ^ a b "Can Electric Charges and Currents Survive in an Inhomogeneous Universe?". arXiv. Sep 2006. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  20. ^ H. Alfvén, Model of the Plasma Universe, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol PS-14, 1986. [1]
  21. ^ a b A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology: Part I, Interpretations of a Visible Universe, World & I, vol. 8, pp. 294-301, August 1989. [2]
  22. ^ a b A. L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology:Part II, The Universe is a Sea of Electrically Charged Particles, World & I, vol. 9, pp. 306-317, September 1989 .[3]
  23. ^ A.L. Peratt, Plasma Cosmology, Sky & Tel. Feb. 1992
  24. ^ A. L. Peratt, Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 3-11 (1995). [4]
  25. ^ A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets" (PDF). IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science. PS-14: 639–660. ISSN 0093-3813.
  26. ^ Bostick, W. H., "What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small" (1986) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 703-717
  27. ^ "Evolution of Colliding Plasmas". Physical Review Letters. 44: 1767–1770. 20 June 1980. Bibcode:1980PhRvL..44.1767P. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1767. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  28. ^ a b c E. J. Lerner (1991). The Big Bang Never Happened. New York and Toronto: Random House. ISBN 0-8129-1853-3.
  29. ^ a b "On the Evolution of Interacting, Magnetized, Galactic Plasmas". Astrophysics and Space Science. 91: 19–33. 1983. Bibcode:1983Ap&SS..91...19P. doi:10.1007/BF00650210. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
  30. ^ a b c A. Peratt (1986). "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies" (PDF). IEEE Trans. on Plasma Science. PS-14: 763–778. ISSN 0093-3813.
  31. ^ E.J. Lerner (1986). "Magnetic Self‑Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies". Laser and Particle Beams. 4 part 2: 193‑222. Bibcode:1986LPB.....4..193L. doi:10.1017/S0263034600001750.
  32. ^ (See IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, issues in 1986, 1989, 1990, 1992, 2000, 2003, and 2007)
  33. ^ 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. [5] 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 [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."
  34. ^ J.Audouze et al., "Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements", Astrophysical Journal 293:L53-L57, 1985 June 15 [6]
  35. ^ 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.
  36. ^ Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, IEEE Trans. Plasma Science Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [7]) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium", 1983, pp. 71-75 [8] 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.
  37. ^ Eric Lerner. Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data, Astrophysics and Space Science, 227: 61-81, 1995.
  38. ^ * Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, [9],A New Non-Doppler Redshift.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=611862698"