Tom Wilson: Dark Matter Recreations Part One.
There seems to be a growing cadre of theoretical astronomers who are focused on mathematical recreations centered on dark matter without observations or data to interpret.
In June 2008, Universe Today published a report from astronomers Siegel and Xu, predicting about 10^20 kilograms of dark matter in our Solar System that was accreted over the last 4.5 billion years. Quoting Siegel in the original paper:
“Overall, we find that dark matter in our Solar System is far more important than previously thought. Due to gravitational three-body interactions between dark matter particles, the Sun, and the planets, a significant amount of dark matter winds up gravitationally bound to our Solar System, resulting in density enhancements between two and five orders of magnitude, depending on the distance from the Sun.”
The paper begins by asserting dark matter as a reality, without any doubt as to its existence. Siegel begins the paper by citing evidence in three key areas that support the existence of dark matter: First, cosmic microwave background (CMB) evidence; second, galactic power spectrum analyses; and third, galaxy cluster collision evidence.
In part two of this article we will examine this underlying evidence in some detail. However, summarizing the Electric Universe position about the initial dark matter assertion, the underlying “evidence” for dark matter is not so much actual data, but the cosmological interpretations overlaid on actual data. The real observational data is red shifts, galactic distances, and cosmic background temperature gradients. All else is inference.
The approach Siegel and Xu took in computing the amount of dark matter in the solar system was based in the assumption that there is a certain dark matter density in the interstellar space surrounding the Solar System. They used a value of 0.009 solar masses per cubic parsec (one cubic parsec equals 9.78 cubic light-years), which amounts to about 7 x 10^-20 kilograms per cubic meter, or about 10 to 100 times the density assumed for “regular” interstellar matter.
They then used relatively straightforward calculations to compute the volume of space the Solar System encountered in its 4.5 billion year history. With that, they were able to calculate the gravitational capture of the dark matter given the relative velocities of the planets, the sun and the dark matter itself. Without getting into too much detail, they were able to estimate a dark matter density profile with respect to distance from the sun and the different planets.
According to Xu and Siegel, the Solar System has captured about 10^20 kilograms of dark matter over its 4.5 billion year history. Questions that should always be in the forefront when reading any scientific report include: how valid are the underlying assumptions for the work, and how useful is it for understanding the Universe?
Putting 10^20 kilograms of matter into context reveals it to be vanishingly small with respect to the Solar System as a whole. This amount of mass falls somewhere between the third and fourth largest asteroids (Vesta and Hygiea, respectively). The determination does nothing to explain Solar System dynamics or the anomalous behavior of space probes. How this vanishingly small amount of matter translates into “a significant amount of dark matter” is difficult to understand.
The key, according to Siegel, is that the dark matter density near the Earth (3.3 x 10^16 kilograms per cubic astronomical unit) is now shown to be four orders of magnitude greater than the background halo density. This statement is confusing. Translating the dark matter density close to the Earth into kilograms per cubic meter results in 10^-17 kilograms per cubic meter. Remember the interstellar dark matter density was 7 x 10^-20 kilograms per cubic meter, which looks like 2 to 3 orders of magnitude.
Regardless, Siegel claims this “discovery” will help dark matter investigators because they'll "know where to look." However, by definition, dark matter is unobservable so it is unclear how this benefit will be realized.
A different viewpoint demonstrates that these investigators have based a paper on assumptions about dark matter drawn from earlier papers that are themselves based on different types of assumptions about dark matter and the cosmological model. There is assumption layered on assumption to the point where there is no longer any need for actual data or observations.
It seems to be enough at this point to construct a Universe and Solar System that astronomers no longer actually observe in favor of mathematical recreations involving dark matter densities and so on. In the end, this work has led to a conclusion that a vanishingly small (one might say meaningless) amount of dark matter has accumulated in 4.5 billion years. I’m sorry, I do not find this enlightening.
I encourage astronomers like these authors in question to go out on a clear night with a simple optical telescope and take a good look. They will see a Universe that is brightly lit throughout the electromagnetic spectrum, with electrically active plasmas stretching between our Sun and the planets, as well as between the stars and galaxies.
During the day using a solar filter, they will see the electromagnetic activity of our own Sun tossing immensely hot filaments of plasma into space. With bigger telescopes, like Hubble, they can see intricately arrayed Birkeland filaments winding through planetary nebulae. The heart of our galaxy is brightly lit in a sparkling electromagnetic rainbow driven by powerful electrical currents carried on intergalactic transmission lines.
The Universe is not an abstract mathematical construct of dark matter halos, black hole singularities or geometrically perfect neutron stars. It is filled with electric currents flowing through chaotically beautiful Birkeland filaments. These chaotic filaments are notoriously difficult to squeeze into linear differential equations, but they’re there just the same. Just go look.
It is interesting to note that you postulate unproven theories, one after another, yet when it is discovered that only 20% of matter is detectable by normal means, you reject it out of hand.
ReplyDeleteBetween x-ray and lensing data, something is there. You do not accept it simply because you do not trust Mainstream Science. I suggest that you are not looking deep enough into the data, and are so invested in your pet hypotheses that when evidence is presented you call it a fairy tale.
But that's me repeating myself, isn't it?
I need some clarification in developing better understanding of the EU theories, hypotheses etc.
ReplyDeleteA current requires a source and sink – a material source for the electrons/holes to originate and end. Where are the source and sink for Birkeland currents in so called free space? What potential do we need to drive such currents in “free space”?
When some substance is supported in an ionized state in a flowing neutral media, we identify it as plasma. To create and support such states requires sources and sinks and the EM fields. How do they come about?
Jeffery,
ReplyDelete"It is interesting to note that you postulate unproven theories, one after another..."
Such as?
"yet when it is discovered that only 20% of matter is detectable by normal means, you reject it out of hand."
0% of Dark Matter is detectable. The only thing that's detectable is the elctromagnetic spectrum which is 100% detectable.
"Between x-ray and lensing data, something is there."
X-rays are electromagnetic. Nothing to do with mythological Dark Matter or any other mainstream fairy tale.
"You do not accept it simply because you do not trust Mainstream Science."
Mainstream science said x-rays are a hoax.
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- Lord Kelvin, physicist, 1895
I say Dark Matter is a hoax.
"I suggest that you are not looking deep enough into the data..."
I suggest that you didn't read the post.
KV,
ReplyDelete"I need some clarification in developing better understanding of the EU theories, hypotheses etc."
I would suggest picking up a copy of Donald Scott's The Electric Sky (Mikamar 2006) and Wal Thornhill's The Electric Universe (Mikamar 2007).
Or you can watch Youtube.
The Electric Universe Part 1.
Cosmology Quest 2: Plasma Cosmology Part 1
See the sidebar at left for more details.
OIM,
ReplyDeletePlasma Cosmology begins with some god creating stuff, that turns me off. The electric Universe begins with Sun/Earth model with magnetic field lines originating from Earth with no explanations, and no magnetic fields from Sun, but a flow of gas/plasma going to Earth. This is childish.
There is an unending search for a unified field theory in Physics. Again, I need some info on sources and sinks for supporting currents in “free space”, and sources for EM fields that support plasma states.
KV,
ReplyDelete"Plasma Cosmology begins with some god creating stuff, that turns me off."
And the Big Bang doesn't?
The Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest named George Lemaitre. He was literally a Vatican agent.
"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, date unknown
"The electric Universe begins with Sun/Earth model with magnetic field lines originating from Earth with no explanations, and no magnetic fields from Sun, but a flow of gas/plasma going to Earth. This is childish."
Why is electromagnetism and plasma childish?
"There is an unending search for a unified field theory in Physics."
Is that childish too?
"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish." -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteBe careful in your attributions.
KV wrote: "Plasma Cosmology begins with some god creating stuff, that turns me off."
No, KV, that is false. There is no attribution to God, Hannes Alfven was very clear that science and religion must not be mixed.
Please show evidence for your statement, I don't think there is any, but if you provide evidence I can at least look at it and evaluate.
Otherwise, it seems your purpose for offering your unsupported statement is to generate unfair prejudice in the readers about Plasma Cosmology and its extension Electric Universe.
Is that what you are up to?
KV wrote: "The electric Universe begins with Sun/Earth model with magnetic field lines originating from Earth with no explanations, and no magnetic fields from Sun, but a flow of gas/plasma going to Earth. This is childish."
This statement is misleading at best.
It is apparent that you don't know much about Electric Universe theories (or you want to mislead the readers, and since you claim to have read Hannes Alfven's work, then I have to come to the conclusion you are attempting to mislead the readers).
Let's take your statement apart, shall we.
"The electric Universe begins with Sun/Earth model with magnetic field lines originating from Earth with no explanations..."
False.
In fact, there are detailed explanations, which apparently you make no effort to inform yourself of, or intentionally attempt to mislead readers.
And no, I'm not going to explain them here and now. Do even a small amount of research and you will have your answer -- if that has any interest to you.
"...and no magnetic fields from Sun..."
False.
Electric Universe claims no such thing, in fact, it's "modern" astronomy that attempts to diminish the role of electromagnetism in the solar wind.
Now, they can't do that entirely because it's indisputable there is an electric field and a "current" in the heliospheric current sheet, but regularly I encounter this consistent attempt by "modern" astronomers to downplay the electrical component.
In fact, it is well known that electric current generates magnetic fields, per Maxwell's equations, so that the magnetic field in the solar wind needs to be generated by an electric current, but "modern" astronomers deny that electric currents are needed.
KV, initially I had respect for you, but such misstatements diminish my respect and hurt your credibility.
Now, let's go back to your first question which is a reasonable one.
KV wrote: "A current requires a source and sink – a material source for the electrons/holes to originate and end. Where are the source and sink for Birkeland currents in so called free space?"
The best answer is that I don't know.
But there are many physical processes and structures that demonstrate such is the case.
But let me offer an anology: The Universe is like a river and galaxies are eddies and swirls in that river. Eddies and swirls have beginnings and middles and eventually ends.
Is this a complete analogy or does Plasma Cosmology have all the answers?
Obviously not, as you stated yourself, scientific knowledge is by nature incomplete.
What is obvious, is that electromagnetic fields exist all over the known universe.
How do I know that?
Because magnetic fields have been observed & measured all over the Universe and you have to have charged particle motion to have magnetic fields.
You can't have the "magnetic" without the "electro".
Please, do your homework before you make comments.
To other readers:
ReplyDeleteNotice in both of KV's comments in this post, he doesn't address the merits of the article in the post, itself.
Perhaps, because he has no good answers.
Instead, KV sets up a series of strawman arguments about Plasma Cosmology and its extension Electric Universe theory.
Why?
Because he wants to distract from the argument in the article and the fact that so-called "dark" matter is simply a crutch to avoid having "modern" astronomies theories falsified, and, thus, invalidated.
I previously brought this article to KV's attention in the comments to a prior post (even linking the article in my comment), but KV evaded the comments or discussing the the linked article (the same article as in this post).
Exactly like he is doing here.
Evading reasonable questions and assertions is poor form in scientific discourse.
I'm sorry, KV, but I have to call a spade a spade. Your attempts to distract from basic observations & measurements or the lack thereof, and avoid basic questions about the problems with "modern" astronomy's theories is quite revealing.
These two comments in response to this post, or more accurately, these two attempts to distract from this post, is a perfect demonstration of the failure to "grasp the nettle".
You have to do better than that, or you simply are wasting your time here because I will shoot down your comments and expose them as disingenuous or ignorant where appropriate.
That is not my desire.
I would much perfer to have reasonable discussion & dialogue. Reasonable scepticism is fine, even a requirement of the Scientific Method.
But disingenuous strawman arguments or failure to address the merits of an article will be exposed for what they are.
Intellectual dishonesty.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteI extract only the following from your lengthy posts and I have bolded your response to my question:
KV wrote: "A current requires a source and sink – a material source for the electrons/holes to originate and end. Where are the source and sink for Birkeland currents in so called free space?"
The best answer is that I don't know.
Rest of your posts are a rant, as your belief system seemed challenged.
By the way, any first year Physics/Engineering student knows that we need spinning or running electrons/charges to create a magnetic field. And, to support those electrons we need very heavy stuff as atoms, molecules, material flows, etc., which somehow has mass, that may need gravity to cling around generally without reacting, etc. etc. You want EM independent of gravity, and it is not happening... Mostly, Physicists are on right track to search for unification of forces, dark matter or not, and plasma universe or not.
OIM,
ReplyDeleteYou observed on my previous post: Why is electromagnetism and plasma childish?
My context was about the videos that were childish, not the title of the videos.
You also wrote: The Big Bang was invented by a Catholic priest named George Lemaitre. He was literally a Vatican agent.
Here is how I would have written: the big bang was proposed by George Lemaitre, a Catholic priest. And, here is how Wiki cites:
Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven. He sometimes used the title Abbé or Monseigneur.
Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'.[1][2][3]
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteYou are pathetic.
I provide you with an honest, direct answer (something, you apparently have a hard time doing), instead of answering more in your modus operandi, such as avoiding the question, altogether, or responding with, "What happened before the 'big bang'?" or, "What caused the 'big bang'?" And what do I get?
A characterization that my comment is a "rant" because my "belief system seemed challenged."
Hardly.
You simply refuse to engage the post and I point that out to the readers.
You misstate Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe theory by putting out several stawman arguments and I point that out and ask for evidence of your assertions.
Which apparently you can't provide.
(I guess your stupid statement, "Plasma Cosmology begins with some god creating stuff, that turns me off.", went down the memory hole.
How honest to admit your statement was a bunch of b.s., oh, I forgot, you ignored that request for evidence to support your assertion.)
KV wrote: "By the way, any first year Physics/Engineering student knows that we need spinning or running electrons/charges to create a magnetic field."
Yes, charged particles in motion, which is an electric current causes magnetic fields.
KV wote: "You want EM independent of gravity, and it is not happening..."
The electromotive force is 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational force. Electromagnetism doesn't rely on gravity to exist.
Electromagnetism is a Fundamental Force of the Universe that is present independent of gravity, which is also a Fundamental Force.
But I must admit that your denial of electricity in space comes in an interesting form.
Electromagnetism depends on gravity and since gravity is exceedingly weak in the first instance and even weaker as distance is increased (with vast distances in space). The vast distances of space don't allow for enough gravity force so as to allow electromagnetism to operate.
Is that your position?
KV wrote: "And, to support those electrons we need very heavy stuff as atoms, molecules, material flows, etc...."
What we need is plasma, electrons and ions, in space.
And since plasma is over 99.9% of the Universe, that is not a problem.
Yes, Unity of Forces is desirable and there is some thinking that states that electromagnetism is key to that goal as OilIsMastery suggests with his Faraday quote.
But ignoring the argument presented in the post, itslef, and attacking Plasma Cosmology with strawman arguments is chicken shit.
You want to comment on the post: Discuss the article's argument about so-called "dark" matter.
So far, KV, all you have demonstrated is your inability to engage the issues directly.
Which does suggest you are a "modern" astronomer, as I have found that they aren't used to defending their assumptions.
And "modern" astronomy has a lot of assumptions that don't bear up under close inspection, like so-called "dark" matter.
KV, it's time to pack your bags and head for Polukaville.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteI enjoy reading your rants.
Post Script:
ReplyDelete@ KV:
"...your belief system seemed challenged."
Please,
Do you really think a couple of strawman paragraphs that misstate Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe theory actually constitute a challenge to my world view?
Laugh out loud.
Rather, you are the one that has evaded discussing this article about so-called "dark" matter two seperate times.
(Each time being directly asked.)
And the fallacy of "dark" matter is a direct challenge to the gravity "only" model that you obviously espouse.
KV, you are projecting your own fears.
But I must say this: You are right to fear the fallacy of "dark" matter because its pseudo-scientific basis is similar to most of the rest of astronomy's cosmological view point, junk science.
Keep psychologically projecting: It's entertaining to see you intellectually squirm.
Anaconda wrote:
ReplyDeleteWhat we need is plasma, electrons and ions, in space.
Without any source, sink, just created out of nothing, like a big bang!
"Space is filled with electrons and of flying electric ions of all kinds." -- Kristian Birkeland, physicist, 1904
ReplyDelete@ KV:
ReplyDeleteI've already asked you directly twice for a response to the posted article on so-called "dark" matter.
But, I'll ask a third time: KV, what is your response to this article on "dark matter"?
Actually, what you need is charge seperation and yes the Universe is over 99.9% plasma, charged particles.
And, yes, there does seem to be an order and structure to the Universe that is far too old or would take too long to form to fit the paradigm of the "big bang".
It seems the cat's got your tongue when it comes to "dark" matter.
Here, kitty...kitty...
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteI do really enjoy your rants.
You have no source, no sink, nor any conceivable basis to your claims for existence of charged particles, or the universe being 99.9% plasma, and no explanation for what is 0.1% that is leftover.
Look forward to your rant, rat!
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteOn Dark Matter (From Wiki):
In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is hypothetical matter that is undetectable by its emitted radiation, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.[1] According to present observations of structures larger than galaxies, as well as Big Bang cosmology, dark matter and dark energy could account for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.
Dark matter is postulated to partially account for evidence of "missing mass" in the universe, including the rotational speeds of galaxies, orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters, gravitational lensing of background objects by galaxy clusters such as the Bullet Cluster, and the temperature distribution of hot gas in galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
Dark matter is believed to play a central role in structure formation and galaxy evolution, and has measurable effects on the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background. All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and the universe as a whole contain far more matter than that which interacts with electromagnetic radiation: the remainder is frequently called the "dark matter component," even though there is a small amount of baryonic dark matter.
As important as dark matter is believed to be in the universe, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive. Though the theory of dark matter remains the most widely accepted theory to explain the anomalies in observed galactic rotation, some alternative theories such as MOND and TeVeS have been proposed. None of these alternatives, however, have garnered equally widespread support in the scientific community...
More at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Anaconda,
ReplyDeletePlease correct in my previous post from
Look forward to your rant, rat! to Look forward to your rant, rant!
Here is a link for 144 page pdf file you can read on Dark Matter, a peer reviewed paper published in 2008.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0404/0404175v2.pdf
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteMORE on Dark Energy.
The following from: http://jdem.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Decadal_Survey-Dark_Energy_Task_Force_report.pdf
[Dark Energy Task Force]…recommendations are based on the results of our modeling. They are discussed in detail in Section V. In summary, they are:
I. We strongly recommend that there be an aggressive program to explore dark energy as fully as possible, since it challenges our understanding of fundamental physical laws and the nature of the cosmos.
II. We recommend that the dark energy program have multiple techniques at every stage, at least one of which is a probe sensitive to the growth of cosmological structure in the form of galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
III. We recommend that the dark energy program include a combination of techniques from one or more Stage III projects designed to achieve, in combination, at least a factor of three gain over Stage II in the DETF figure of merit, based on critical appraisals of likely statistical and systematic uncertainties.
IV. We recommend that the dark energy program include a combination of techniques from one or more Stage IV projects designed to achieve, in combination, at least a factor of ten gain over Stage II in the DETF figure of merit, based on critical appraisals of likely statistical and systematic uncertainties. Because JDEM, LST, and SKA all offer promising avenues to greatly improved understanding of dark energy, we recommend continued research and development investments to optimize the programs and to address remaining technical questions and systematic-error risks.
V. We recommend that high priority for near-term funding should be given as well to projects that will improve our understanding of the dominant systematic effects in dark energy measurements and, wherever possible, reduce them, even if they do not immediately increase the DETF figure of merit.
VI. We recommend that the community and the funding agencies develop a coherent program of experiments designed to meet the goals and criteria set out in these recommendations.
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteKV wrote: "You have no source, no sink, nor any conceivable basis to your claims for existence of charged particles, or the universe being 99.9% plasma, and no explanation for what is 0.1% that is leftover."
Here is the source: Plasma 99.999% of Universe.
"The visible universe is 99.999% plasma. So quite simply, if you don't know how cosmic plasmas behave, you don't know the Universe. And astrophysical plasmas may behave differently to terrestrial plasmas.
It is worth noting that all cosmic plasma carries a magnetic field and electric currents. Even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas (ie. "dust grains can be the dominant current carrier")."
Notice the footnotes at the bottom of the linked webpage. There are a total of 20 footnoted sources that place the percentage of plasma in the Universe at over 99%.
Including eleven academic textbooks.
You will note there are multiple sources that support the 99.9% plasma figure I gave.
The left-over?
Neutral atoms.
As to your sources regarding "dark" matter, they assume so-called "dark" matter, but there is no direct observation & measurement of "dark" matter.
Obviously, you provide no specific response to the specific arguments provided in the posted article, rather, your rely on "cut and paste", fine, that is acceptable, but doesn't really say much.
Here is the Part Two of the article: Dark Matter Recreations Part Two.
The source on your last comment provides an implicit reason for clinging to "dark" matter:
FUNDING -- DOLLARS
"We recommend that the community and the funding agencies develop a coherent program..."
But back to the plasma: Your empty assertion that there is no documentation for the 99.9% figure reveals that you are not an astronomer or have much knowledge of astro-plasma-physics because if you did you wouldn't carry on with such an obvious mistake.
It seems clear you are a debunker, again, that is fine, but before you go off and expose your ignorance any further, please review the documents on the left-hand side-bar under plasma, or review some back posts on the subject.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteTwo part post, Part 1:
From the Particle Dark Matter: Evidence, Candidates and Constraints (144 page pdf document, with over 600 citations) linked in my previous post:
The article is organized as follows: we first present, in this chapter, a brief review of the Standard Model of particle physics and cosmology, and review our present understanding of the history of the Universe. We focus in particular on the freeze-out of dark matter particles and on the calculation of their relic abundance, and discuss the possible relationship between dark matter and physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics.
Chapter 2 is devoted to the compelling evidence for dark matter at all astrophysical length scales. We review the key observations and discuss the theoretical predictions (from N-body simulations) for the distribution of dark matter, focusing in particular on the innermost regions of galaxies, and discuss how they compare with observations. Particular attention is devoted to the galactic center, where the presence of a supermassive black hole could significantly modify the dark matter distribution.
Dark matter candidates are presented in chapter 3. We start with an introduction to the “dark matter zoo”, i.e. a description of the many candidates that have been proposed in the literature. We then focus on two particularly interesting dark matter candidates: the supersymmetric neutralino and Kaluza-Klein dark matter. For each of these candidates, we give a brief introduction to the physical motivations and underlying theories. We conclude chapter 3 with a review of the constraints put on dark matter from collider experiments, and discuss the prospects for future experiments.
You can read the rest at the link posted before. But I have serious reservation you would do so, and if you did, I doubt you would care to learn/relearn the physics as it is... incomplete, but striving to learn.
Anaconda,
ReplyDeleteThis is Part 2, on Plasma Cosmology, that begins with presumptive existence of matter-antimatter, and we exist in a boundary (some bs about double layered, ambiplasma, effectively confining all of us in this never to escape without annihilation, blah, blah, blah, without any proofs, but hot winded (plasmatic?) claims) - From Wiki:
The conceptual origins of plasma cosmology were developed during 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 had an important influence on galaxy formation. During 1971, Klein extended 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 matter and antimatter that created the universe or meta-galaxy as they preferred to speculate (see the Shapley-Curtis debate for more on the history of distinguishing between the universe and the Milky Way galaxy). 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 double layers. 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. Annihilation radiation would emanate from the double layers of plasma and antiplasma domains. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays[citation needed], x-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.[12]
Ambiplasma was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe as being due to an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter.[13] 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 baryons rather than antibaryons. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature.
Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed[14] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[15] 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.
In 1993, theoretical cosmologist Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology of Klein (1971), and Alfvén's 1966 book, Worlds-Antiworlds, 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".[10]
Do some independent research and studies, and stop arm waving for the stuff you do not comprehend.
@ KV:
ReplyDeleteNew Scientist magazine has published an article recently that reports a scientific paper that throws the whole so-called "dark" matter hypothesis into doubt.
New Scientist, Space
Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories, 30 September 2009 by Stuart Clark
"Dark matter is either weirder than we thought or does not exist at all, a new study suggests."
"Since dark matter does not radiate light, astronomers infer its distribution by looking at how a galaxy's gas and stars are moving. Previous studies have suggested that dark matter must be uniformly distributed within a galaxy's central region – a confounding result since the dark matter's gravity should make it progressively denser towards a galaxy's centre."
Now, the tale has taken a deeper turn into the unknown, thanks to an analysis of the normal matter at the centres of 28 galaxies of all shapes and sizes. The study shows that there is always five times more dark matter than normal matter where the dark matter density has dropped to one-quarter of its central value."
"The finding goes against expectations because the ratio of dark to normal matter should depend on the galaxy's history – for example, whether it has merged with another galaxy or remained isolated during its entire existence. Mergers should skew the ratio of dark to normal matter on an individual basis."
And the backbreaker quote:
"There is absolutely no rule in physics that explains these results," says study co-author Hong Sheng Zhao of the University of St Andrews in the UK."
KV, should you see this comment, I suggest you read the comment section...interesting.
So-called "dark" matter:
Dead meat!