The Plasma Theory

The Plasma Theory

I want to learn more about the Plasma Theory, anyone can explain more or have good links of scientific information??

Ok, cosmologists believe in the Big Bang Theory. Personally I don't buy the Big Bang Theory because of its many flaws.

1) Scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the Universe for many years now. It is conjectured that this radiation is the "left-over heat" from the original Big Bang. The problem arises that wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform. Being so uniform it does not remain consistent with the fact that the Universe itself is not uniform. There are clusters, to super clusters of galaxies and voids. If the Big Bang Theory was true, there should be a relation between the material composition of the Universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature - this isn't the case.

2) The State Model of the Big Bang doesn't really remain consistent with the concept of Conservation of Angular Momemtum. If the Universe started with an explosion, all the matter and energy should have been propelled radially from the explosion center. There are curving and orbiting motions that are commonly observed in the Universe, how does the Big Bang account for this? Further more that 1800s MIT Genius model explains that the explosion randomly expands, then slows, expands then slows. There is no mechanism known that would allow the Universe to begin in an random state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This came up recently on this thread here. There is little merit to the Plasma Theory.

Do you fully understand the failures of the Big Bang model and it's strengths? Does the plasma model explain the baryo/photon ratio and Lithium abundances? How does it explain the CMBR.

The page you quote also refers to 'papers' going back ten years ago. There have been several very important experiments since then that support the standard models. Look up BoOMERANG and the Very Small Array. Lerner and Arp are hardly trustworthy authorities to use either.

This was indeed a very big problem for some time. Recent work, published a few weeks ago - look in this thread for my post on the CMBR, has found the expected anisotropies.

Bzzzt. This is a serious misunderstanding of the Big Bang. The standard model has spacetime itself expanding to explain the isotropy of the Universe. This negates any conservation of momentum issues. Mass does not explode into an existing space. Spacetime itself is created then expands. According to Guth's Inflation model this happens superluminally.

It does not attempt to do so. The Big bang describes the evolution of the Universe after creation and it's large scale structure. Local affects, such as galactic clusters, are considered too small to be studied. It is common practice in cosmology to consider galaxies as point objects. After all, they are only 1% of the distance between them.

1800's? Things have moved on a bit since then. Plus I've never heard of the Genius model.

To get order out of chaos, decreasing entropy, only requires the input of energy. Basic thermodynamics explains this.

FWIW, the standard model does not say the Universe expands randomly as stated above. The very important and significant discovery by Saul Perlmutter, and now confirmed, is that expansion is accelerating. This is not explained by the standard model, is it explained by the plasma model. I think not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I see, no I don't understand the Big Bang theory fully yet. This input of energy you are talking about, where would it come from?

So the Plasma Theory doesn't have much evidence, therefore the Big Bang theory is more widely accepted?

What about the saying "Out of nothing comes nothing?"

Thanks for the info though, i have to research alot more

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, as I understand it, there is variation to the radiation. Not large, admittedly, but there none the less. Below is a link to the astronomy section where the VSA has measured the CBR. You will see that the picture shows it as lumpy. Part of this is dark energy. Dark energy is believed to be what is responsible for the increase in the speed of expansion of the universe. Dark matter is believed to be what "seeded" or encouraged matter to begin to clump and form larger structures.


http://www.sciforums.com/t7869/s/thread.html

 

It's taken me about 15 years to get to grips with most of the details of the Big Bang theory so best of luck to you in your quest. If you are really good I'd give you about 5 years to understand the details. I'm not being persnickety about this, it is one extremely complicated set of ideas and interwoven theories.

A point though. The Big Bang is a description of what happens after creation occurs. It does not, though recent theries attempt it, describe what creation was. All that can be said is teh Universe is expanding so working backwards it follows that everything came from a single point. That is what the Big bang is all about.

I can't give you a general answer as to where the various structures come from. Cosmology is still very much in it's infancy so it only has a few general ideas to work with. The Universe is massively more complicated than we yet understand.

A few details though. According to the original models the Universe should be homogenous and isotropic, looks the same everywhere. This basically means no structures whatsoever, yet they exist. The idea currently is that minor (parts per millions or tens of millions) variations in the original energies of the Big Bang 'inflate' into large sclae structures. These minor variations appear to have been detected by the very small array.

As James says, there is then the issues of dark matter and energy. Galactic clusters are thought to be created where dark matter is denser. Again, caused by minor variations in the Big Bang. This is a whole topic unto itself at present.

The creation of galaxies is another big one that requires a topic to itself. There are differing ideas as to what causes Ellipticals and Spirals and their evolution.

But I digress I bit. Where the energy comes from to form structure appears to depend on specifics we do not fully understand yet. The Universe is not simple. One concept is that dark matter causes normal matter to contract gravitationally. This creates energy and hence structure.

Bear in mind that the 'plasma model' only came about several decades after the Big Bang model.

Granted, at the time the Big Bang model was almost on the verge of being thrown out. The problems with it where bad. These have since been 'patched' by new models and ideas that seem to be experimentally verified. A fact the plasma theorists seem to totally ignore or mis-understand.

But in short, yes. The evidence supports the Big Bang models. That is not to say Plasma does not affect astrophysical processes, it does. But some of the predictions of plasma models are too 'out there'. E.G. Stars are powered by Z-pinch effects of a plasma and not fusion.

The biggest problem still facing all theorists is the creation ex nihilo. That's why the Big Bang does not address the issue, yet.

You do, trust me. First try learning special relativity, electromagnetism and basic quantum mechanics. Then progress to statistical thermodynamics, advanced quantum mecahnics and basic stellar models and evolutionary theory. Then take some courses in advanced quantum mechanics, general relativity, particle physics and cosmology and advanced stellar models alngside magnetohydrodynamics. Read the journals; Astrophysical Journal, Physical Review and Astronomy and Astrophysics and Nature. In your spare time read through the Annual Review of Astrophysics about these topics so you understand the history of them. Then take a Masters or a Ph.D., then re-read the plasma models.

Again, I'm being serious not sarcastic. These are non-trivial topics that the 'pop-sci' books often gloss over the details or miss out details.

 

To add a bit I missed

The conditions in the early Universe, a few hundreds of years after the BB, where ruled by quantum mechanics. It was a high energy era. So the study of high energy/fundamental particles gives us a view of the early Universe. General Relativity describes large scale structures and behaviours.

The two theories are currently imcompatible but are thought to be sub-sets of a general theory that describes events in this crucial part of the early Universe. A so called 'theory of everything' should also give us insights on why the Universe was created and information on why this way and not another.

To understand the Big Bang 'theory' you have to understand both quantum mechanics and general relativity plus details on nuclear fusion and thermodynamics.

Have I put you off yet

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not at all

You are quite the intellect. I'm very young, in high school, planning to go to MIT

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

All that you have stated sounded so amusingly interesting. Thanks alot for the information. I REALLY want to learn all that now. Science is my favorite subject, math comes second.

But may I ask, what are your views on the Design Theory? You think it's possible there is a "higher being" involved with all this?

Thank, your posts are most appreciated.

 

Re: Not at all

If I was that good I would be a researcher and not in IT

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Go for it.

You'll go far then. To understand Physics you need maths. A lot of maths.

That is a Philosophical question. I Don't do philosophy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But, personally I'm an Atheist and believe the Universe is entirely naturalistic and ruled by laws we can understand. Our knowledge of things is still lacking and very immature. There's an old saying, the more you learn you the more you realise how little you know.

But, another but, some aspects of the Universe seem so highly contrived that it appears as if there is a $DEITY out there. If there is, they have a highly developed sense of humour and are a mathematician par excellence.

Thank, your posts are most appreciated. [/B][/QUOTE]

 

I, too, have over time grown increasingly suspicious that what lies behind the existence of the cosmos is an as yet unfathomable pun.

 

The reason it is so uniform is because it is left over from the earliest moments of the universe, before gravity had a chance to distort everything. Besides, gravity has a very minute effect on energy. Now, if you are trying to debunk such an accepted theory, you'd better have some damn good proof!

About angular momentom, gravity will try to balance g and centrifugal force, which means that unless two objects smack straight into another (highly unlikely), they will begin to orbit one another, and now, thanks to the uncertainty principle, we know that ANYTHING, no matter how straight they smack into one another will eventually begin to orbit one another. That's pretty weak evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

<I>1800s MIT Genius model explains that the explosion randomly expands, then slows, expands then slows. There is no mechanism known
that would allow the Universe to begin in an random state and then evolve to its present highly ordered state.</I>

What are you even talking about? By the way, WHERE IS YOUR THEORY SO I CAN QUICKLY SHOOT IT DOWN.


<I>What about the saying "Out of nothing comes nothing?"</I>

Absolutely....wrong. Believe it or not, you CAN get something from nothing. YOUR FRICKIN MOM COULD APPEAR OUT OF THIN AIR, ALTHOUGH THE ODDS ARE AGAINST IT. SOMEONE REALLY SHOULD START A THREAD ON EITHER INFLATION OR THE CASIMIR EFFECT. OR JUST QUANTUM FLUCTUATIONS. I am so sick of having to tell people about them.

 

Just so you know, MIT sucks for undergraduate education. It's absolutely awesome for graduate school, but undergraduate is so incredibly competitive. Unless you do better in a competitive environment, which some do. I don't like that ubercompetitive atmosphere.

 

maybe that's the reason why MIT is on such high standards because of competitions...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

duhh

 

I agree if the universe is expanding then the microwave radiation would spread to the newly created space and lower it.

What's an example...

Hook up a vacuum pump to a cylinder. The universe growing would be like a vacuum pump pumping air out of the cylinder. The cylinder pressure would drop. The air(gases) inside this cylinder will still be there but the amount of air inside the cylinder would drop.

So wouldn't the universe work the same way? The galaxies moving apart like gas molecules and the radiation levels in space left by the big bang continually dropping at a equal ratio?

But as I understand this does not happen and the cosmic radiation left behind always stays the same throughout.

So what is going on here?

 

necromancy

 

Not necromancy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This radiation is travelling through space, relativly unhindered because empty space is, well, empty. Because the universe is so big, the radiation takes a long time to reach a destination, eg earth, hence we detect radiation that was created millions of years ago.
This radiation is not 'dropping', in contrast to your pump, space isnt being emptied, the volume is simply increasing. Tempurature and preassure are thus decreasing, and that is actualy why we have an opaque wall of CMB. This is more akin to, if you have a sytringe or something similar, and you plug the hole, and pull the plunger up, you increase the volume inside, while lowering the tempurature(you can see this by the moisture condensation) and preassure(you can feel that). Naturaly, there are always the same amount of particles inside the syringe.

-Andrew

 

Definitely necromancy. A five year old thread? Why?