Cosmology Views

Alfven-Klein Cosmology

I missed some of EU's history while busy on other things.

Perhaps others might find some of the intermediate history  interesting.

Wikipedia has a topic for Plasma Cosmology, and a subtopic for Alfven-Klein Cosmology.

I was unaware of the influence of Oskar Klein.

excerpt:

In 1971, Oskar Klein, a Swedish theoretical physicist, extended the earlier proposals and developed the Alfvén–Klein model of the universe, or "metagalaxy", an earlier term used to refer to the empirically accessible part of the universe, rather than the entire universe including parts beyond our particle horizon. 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).

(excerpt end)

observation:

My first impression is this is just misinformation. Antimatter annihilation is never mentioned by EU, nor is Klein. However the site plasma-universe dot com has a very similar description of this time for Alfven.

I noticed this excerpt:

Alfvén (1978) argued that the kinetic energy presently associated with the Hubble expansion is so enormous that matter-antimatter annihilation appears to be the most likely source. Alfvén (1979) also regarded matter-antimatter annihilation to be most important single mechanism which can account for the large release of energy in quasi-stellar objects (QSOs).”
(excerpt end)


my comment:

It is disappointing to see Alfven accepted both the mistaken red shits and the false expansion  and so he proposed a 'single mechanism' like  dark evergy to account for the expansion.

I assume, lacking a reference, Thunderbolts avoided bad theories by just ignoring both thie mistaken expansion and this Alfven-Klein detour.

Wikpedia offers an interesting sequel:

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". 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.

(excerpt end)

I find ironic James Peebles is one to criticize others about observational tests.

James Peebles was awarded the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 'work' on dark matter which is never observed.

He also critcized the models for no prediction of the CMB  which does not exist, and for no prediction of Hubble's Law which is a mistake.

However he was right this result of annihilation is not observed. I am surprised the model arose with such a transient event.

The path of cosmology  since about 1905 certainly has followed a long and winding road with many bumps in that road.

Some of those bumps could be described as holes from the work by theoretical physicists.

EU seems to be maintaining a course defined by classical physics to avoid problems with unverified theories which pop up along the way.