Expert: Philip Stahl - 1/11/2009

Question
QUESTION: Dr. Stahl,
I came across an interesting video on Google videos called "Thunderbolts of the Gods". It's an hour long and I can't expect you to to dedicate that much time to me and my question, but you can if you want to. My question is, are they right?
Another video that is about 10 minutes long is "Hannes Alfvén, Plasma and EM in Space".
Or you can go to their website http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm
I would really like to know what you think.
Thanks for your time,
Urania

ANSWER: Hello,

I am familiar with the basic "electrical" (actually, plasma) universe proposal, as it has popped up (like a bad penny) a number of times in my experience. The basic thrust is that gravity in and of itself is far too weak a force to have been responsible for astrophysical objects and the bulk of astrophysical phenomena, including the Big Bang. It is reasoned that powerful electrical currents also play a huge role in shaping them and their evolution.

For example, Alfven claims that the magnetic "pinch effect" from basic plasma physics - working in tandem with gravity - is much better at concentrating matter than gravity alone. Also, unlike gravity, the magnetic force on a plasma filament - e.g. F(B) = qvB, where q is the electric charge and B the magnetic induction, v the velocity of the charged particles-  increases with the velocity of the plasma.

It is claimed this then leads to a positive feedback effect such that the plasma filaments get sucked into a magnetic "vortex" - with the plasma moving faster (higher v) and thence increasing F(B) on the filaments and increasing the pinch effect.

These sort of effects and the spawning of magnetic vortices are believed to permeate the cosmos and are responsible for most phenomena, especially violent objects like the jets erupting from the cores of certain galaxies.  These are accounted in Alfven's theory (if it can be called that) by invoking the galaxy as a giant spinning magnetic generator- inducing electric currents in the surrounding interstellar medium and plasma. The currents then flow in filamentary spirals toward the center of the galaxy, and then along its spin axis creating the observed "jet" phenomenon.

That such a scenario involving plasma currents could explain violent galaxies is not too controversial. In other words the *possibility* exists given what we already know in plasma physics, especially as it can explain so many features of magnetic substorms for Earth. (For example, when certain powerful magnetic substorms occur, visible as red auroras, the induced currents in the atmosphere of Earth can reach 1 million amperes or more. In at least one case, in 1989, they were responsible for melting transformer wires in the Ottaw power grid).

But to extrapolate this to the claim that the Big Bang never occurred, or can be explained by some giant plasma process is, I think, to extrapolate way too far!

As an aside, let me quickly add that many of these challenges to the Big Bang theory remind me of all the challeges to Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. This I suspect is because his theories have been so quixotic to many, that they invite quixotic responses and challenges. To date, however, none have been successful - which is to say NONE have presented coherent and plausible alternative explanations for the phenomenon described by relativity. In like manner, none of the challenges to the Big Bang have presented coherent and plausible counter-explanations.

Here is another way to put it, based on exchanges I've had with those who've challenged the validity of Einstein's special theory of relativity: If one accept mass-energy equivalence a la Einstein (e.g. delta E = delta m c^2) then he is bound to accept all of special relativity's other results (e.g. time dilation, mass increase with velocity etc.) One cannot 'pick and choose' when the matrix of results is inextricably and logically bound up with the core premise, hypothesis.

Similarly, if one accepts the FACT that there *is* an isotropic cosmic microwave background radiation at temperature ~ 2.73 K then he is compelled to accept the Big Bang version of origin. Because only the Big Bang has the mathematical underpinning (via thermodynamics, statistical physics) to show that the original primeval event would have cooled to that background temperature by now - and ALSO be ISOTROPIC!  (The same in all directions).

To date, neither Alfven or his followers have shown exactly how their plasma universe conception explains that isotropy and the particular background temperature.

When they do (especially if they can publish it in 'The Astrophysical Journal'), I might pay more attention to their claims, and also cease regarding them as analogous to a "bad penny".


---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Dr. Stahl,
Thank you for taking the time to give me an in depth answer to my question. You have steered me clear.

In your answer you also talked about the Big Bang. Are you a proponent of this theory? I ask because a few years ago I was reading (your?) answers to other people's questions on this site and (you?) were saying that you were not too keen on the Big Bang. Was it another astronomer who gave that answer, I wonder.
Thanks

Answer
Hello,

I suspect you might have me confused with someone else. My position is that until another alternative emerges which can separately account for the isotropic background radiation, I am comfortable with the Big Bang theory. Has it had to make some corrections? Yeppers! But all good theories do! Look at all the corrections made to the original quantum theory, shifting it from the Bohr "planetary" model basis to the more abstract probability wave model of Max Born et al.

Glad you found the answer useful, btw.