I wanted to get in on the EU thread with another idea and the original seems to have diversed into particle physics and other topics. My comments didn't fit in that direction.

Anyway... my latest universe contemplating has been trying to perceive beyond 3D space in order to see if I can conceptualize a model that makes more sense. When I think of time as a dimension, it makes some sense that time is the edge of the Universe, rather than a 3D edge.

We can look back in time and see 13 billion years or so. But in no direction can we look forward in time. That puts us at the edge of the time dimension, either in reality or at least for all practical purposes.

The edge of time might be the edge of everything with truely nothing beyond.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Well, there's something to this "edge of time" idea. This is called "horizons" in cosmology. We use horizons as convenient ways for definining the universe, but beyond the various horizons the fact of the matter is we just cannot know what's going on.

We are indeed limitted by our own observing standpoint. It would be wonderful if we could violate the laws of physics and instantaneously transport ourselves to a place 12 billion light years away and see if the universe looks the same. However, we're fairly certain that such a trip, if not impossible, would require resources well beyond our current capabilities as a species.

There are some practical considerations though to making the observing limit the general limit for the universe as we know it.

First of all, there's the matter of inflation. It is looking harder and harder to contradict this theory of the early universe that there was a tremendous expansion at incredible speeds. This implies that the majority of the universe is beyond our own particle horizon and thus "outside" of our time window. Unfortunately, this means that as we continue on into the future, while some models have us see more and more, we will never see it all.

This is why equivalence and cosmological principles are so important... if not for those, we wouldn't be able to get very far as we might worry about how the universe would behave at that point 12 billion light years away from us. This is one of the weaker pillars of cosmology, interestingly enough, but we're beginning to get evidence in support of it from various observational sources.

SO, theory tells us there's something beyond that horizon, but we can't observe it.

at the other hand, we observe "strange" things that maintain cohesion in galaxies ( drak matter ), which the theory didn't predict.

something wrong with theory, unless BB occurred within an already existing universe filled with dark matter/energy ???

One could say we're at the horizon of Future, we observe new things as the horizon approaches us. As far as the opposite end of the horizon, Past, that "edge" is very far away but could be discernable.

Would it be akin to a endless carpet being rolled out, with us being the unrollers? (that is, at the front as new carpet is rolled ut)

I think the most important thing is for us to observe as we go along and try to discern what happened in early time. It might provide insight on what is to come.

No, in fact, theory DOES predict the existence of Dark Matter quite independent of the stuff that we observe. It just so happens that the numbers agree between what we expect from a coherent theory of the Cosmic Microwave Background and what we see keeping clusters of galaxies together, so I really don't see where your problem is lying. There is complete consistency on this front.

Well, indeed it did. Dark matter and dark energy have always been with us (since the beginning of time) and will always be with us. Their effects on our universe are different and dependent upon epoch, however.

What you're getting at is a concept of conformally mapping the universe. Read more about this challenge here.

I like that challenge. Can't wait to understand more of it. Thanks!

there's a problem. kuz 90 % or so of the predicted mass of the universe is missing. this not negligeable.
so u'r solving the problem by stating that this missing stuff must be a sort of invisible matter/energy .... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
likewisely, a previous (theory) calculation found sun lifespan = 7000 years.
but based on vegetal fossile ( observation ), found millions years.
a big discrepancy between the 2.
later after discovery of radioactvity, theory ( 7000 years )was wrong, kuz sun is nuclear reaction not chemical.

in short, if big discrepancy between theory and observation, chances are that theory is wrong.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: cable on 2003-03-02 12:52 ]</font>

Sounds like a theory I read lately.What happend if the universe is in reality a close system lets say a sphere with a radius of 14 or 15 billions years and filled with a super fluid who for some reason 13 billions years away begin to separated in two superfluid counter rotating and this action
begin to created at the very center of that sphere on the equatotial plane the flat and expanding universe as we know it.

Sounds the more crankiest site i ever found,and I work really hard to find them...

6.2 A1 AND A2 COUNTER-ROTATE INSIDE OF EACH OTHER
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/06.htm

...but after reading this,why not trying this idea.
Friedwardt Winterberg (Physics Department, University of Nevada, Reno 89557-0058)
http://www.eps.org/aps/meet/APR00/ba.../S8440009.html

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-02 14:06 ]</font>

In 1997, Joao Magueijo and Andreas Albrecht submitted a paper titled "Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solutions to the Cosmological Problems" to Phycical Review D . The April issue of <u>Discover</u> magazine has an article about the controversial alternate theory to inflation. Unfortunately, it's not on the Discover web site yet.
If I understand the article correctly, the theory is that at the beginning, the universe's extreme heat made photons travel faster than the current 186,262 miles per second. According to <u>Discover</u>, the theory is gaining acceptence among physcists.

Joao Magueijo is known for his "against the mainstream" approaches. He´s a rebel. Consider what he told “New Scientist” about superstrings theory:

"It´s possible that the Final Answer has to do with it, but, judging for what its proponents accomplished so far, it´s not the impression one has. It is so far apart from anything testable, that it cannot be described as a scientific theory. Some interesting ideas have come out of it, but in reality they are like fishes in an aquarium, good for contemplating, only. It derives from the idea that mathematics is important in itself. It results from the search for a formal “elegance” in mathematics. In real science you start with something interesting and make a prediction which can be tested. That´s fine. This elegance thing, as applied to physics, is only self-indulgence, and nothing more."

That's fine as long as he exhibits as much of sobriety as the quote you posted shows...

cable---

you should check out how the observations fit the data a little more carefully. Your being very cavalier when you say that 90% of the mass-energy density is missing and that's the theory. That's not the theory at all. I have given pointers as to what the theory is in the last thread on the Expanding Universe, so I suggest you start there. Also check out Ned Wright's pages. Right now, cable, your objections are not based on knowledge of the intersection between theory and observation but rather on the (unsupported) supposition that theory doesn't account for dark matter, just has something that doesn't "add up". This is not the case at all.

let me put it this way:

If inflation is correct then, since luminous stars and galaxies only contribute 0.5% of the closure density, then 99% of the Universe is in the form of dark matter ......
also inflation demands that the Universe has a density equal to its critical density
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/vi...arkmatter.html

inflation is theory.
observation is what we see.
to support theory, u suppose the existence of dark matter, that we can't see.
one may argue, that if we can't see it, there still another possiblity: dark matter doesn't exist. in this case theory is in doubt.

You've got it backwards. While it's true that the motivation for inflation is to get at a flat universe, the universe itself is observed to be flat. See our discussions of WMAP on this board.

In other words, the evidence for dark matter does not come from inflation, it comes from observation.

I don't think there is anything against the mainstream in the above quote at all. A large percentage of physicists have disdain for string theory for exactly these reasons. Ever try to talk to a condensed matter physicist about string theory? This is the answer you will likely receive. It is unlikely that we will be able to test superstring theory. The calculations have shown that it would take a cyclotron with the same radius as the orbit of Mars in order to be able to test superstring theory. I mentioned this issue in the thread below:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...um=1&start=132

This is a problem that is not confined to string theory, and is a problem in some fields of astronomy, but it is the most obvious in string theory.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2003-03-03 11:35 ]</font>

WMAP confirm than we know only about 5% of what the Universe is made the other 95% is still... a Mistery.Wow!what a discovery. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-03 14:10 ]</font>

Now, you're getting it, Orion! The whole point of science is to press on INTO THE UNKNOWN. And the universe is still very UNKNOWN!

Theories & Metatheories

Although it is common to refer to the "theory" of the Big Bang, I contend that it is semantically incorrect to do so. The Big Bang is not a theory, it is a metatheory. By that I mean that "Big Bang" is a statement about theories, rather than itself a theory. The sense is the same in which metaphysics refers to stements about physics, and metamathematics refers to statements about mathematics (for instance, the Principia Mathematica of Whitehead & Russell is recognized as a work of metamathematics, and not mathematics).

Big Bang is a metaphysical principle, which tells us how to construct physical theories. All Big Bang theories share a common feature, namely a universe which starts out with an extremely small radius of curvature. But what that universe looks like, and how it evolves with time, are very dependent on the details of the models used to represent space-time, in any specific theory. For instance, inflation is a detail, and there are inflationary and non-inflationary theories (variable speed of light cosmology is an example of a non-inflationary theory, where the variability of the speed of light replaces inflation). Likewise, whether one uses general relativity, or a competing theory, or perhaps string theory or some other quantum cosmology, they are all details, and all manner of such cosmologies still share the common feature of all Big Bang cosmologies.

cable: one may argue, that if we can't see it, there still another possiblity: dark matter doesn't exist. in this case theory is in doubt.

I think most will agree readily with this. But which "theory"? Does the observational evidence for dark matter immediately rule out all possible Big Bang cosmologies? I think not, but it can rule out families of Big Bang cosmologies, depending on the details.

To begin with, the notion of "dark" matter is hardly bizarre. Which fundamental principle does one appeal to, in order to support the argument that no manner of matter can be "dark"? Neutrinos are "dark", in much the same manner, but we don't have any trouble accepting that we can observe the presence of neutrinos. We can observe the presence of dark matter too, by virtue of gravity. So it is in reality a rather prosaic notion, supported by the idea that all matter has gravity, and there is no fundamental principle that prohibits darkness.

We construct relatively ordinary models which include dark matter, but it might still not exist. All you need to do to get rid of dark matter is to come up with a theory that does without it. For instance, if one appeals to the 10 or 11 dimensions of string theory, featured in the many "brane" cosmologies (all of which still feature the Big Bang), then the gravity which we assign to dark matter, can come from the luminous matter that we know & love, but it propagates through the extra dimensions, creating the illusion of "dark" matter.

From a strictly "space-time" point of view, one might go either way. But there's more to cosmology than "space-time". Theories have observable consequences (we hope), and observations have theoretical consequences; it works both ways. So how can we differentiate "dark matter" from "extra dimensional gravity"?

The cosmic microwave background affords one possible answer. The difference in height between the first & second peaks in the acoustic (anisotropy) spectrum is fixed by the efficiency of scattering of photons off of matter, an efficiency which we know (or think we know). That feature of the anisotropy spectrum of the CMB, coupled with a determination of the total mass, tells us that the matter that scatters photons (i.e., it is not "dark") is a lot less than the total that we actually have. It leads to the direct consequence that most of the gravitating matter in the universe must be dark.

Hence, given the weight of observable evidence, dark matter wins this round. Cosmologists favor dark matter over alternative explanations, because it fits the data best, for now. New observations, or new theories might change this, but it is unlikely. The effect of new observations has been to enhance the reputation of dark matter, so it's hard to see how more new observations could suddenly reverse that trend, unless they entailed some really new & surprising phenomema. Likewise, it's hard to see how any new theory can dispense with dark matter, while remaining true to the rest of observable cosmology.

orion38: WMAP confirm than we know only about 5% of what the Universe is made the other 95% is still ... a Mistery. Wow! what a discovery.

Actually, I wouldn't call it much of a "discovery", simply because the mass of cosmologists had already reached that conclusion some time ago. By now it's almost boring, a good example of how new observations are serving to enhance the already established reputation of dark matter. Now, what I want to see, is some observation which tells us what that dark matter is. That would be a discovery.

variable Speed of Light Cosmology

Klausnh: According to Discover, the theory is gaining acceptence among physcists.

I disagree with Discover. I think that VSL cosmology has already passed it's prime, and is on the way out. The idea originally put forth by Albrecht & Magueijo was intended to replace the need for inflation, by allowing the speed of light (in vacuo, of course) to be cosmologically variable. Since the speed of light in general relativity acts as a proportionality factor between space & time, one can pretty much do anything inflation does, through this alternate mechanism.

But it's not without its own problems. Most cosmologists are unwilling to part with Lorentz invariance. But worse than that, VSL cosmology leads to the consequential variability of the electron charge, and that's a real problem. As it stands, Magueijo continues to develop that VSL cosmology, and has even written a book about it (see Magueijo's webpage). But is has not become popular with cosmologists, and Magueijo is evidently taking some heat over it.

VSL cosmology has become a topic recently, which is probably why Discover brought it up again now, because of recent work by an Australian group, claiming to see evidence of time variability of the fine structure constant (which, if real, is most easily explained as a manifestation of a time variable speed of light). But both are still on the minority lists, and not yet accepted by most main stream cosmologists. But I think there is more interest & attention paid to the fine structure constant variability, since it is observationally based, and the authors have done a lot of work to advance their hypothesis.

Here are links to a few of the many papers that have been written, both on VSL cosmology, as well as the recent claims of variable fine structure constant.

<ul>[*]A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles, Albrecht & Magueijo, Physical Review D 59(4): art. no. 043516, February 15, 1999.
Abstract: We consider the cosmological implications of light travelling faster in the early Universe. We propose a prescription for deriving corrections to the cosmological evolution equations while the speed of light c is changing. We then show how the horizon, flatness, and cosmological constant problems may be solved. We also study cosmological perturbations in this scenario and show how one may solve the homogeneity and isotropy problems. As it stands, our scenario appears to most easily produce extreme homogeneity, requiring structure to be produced in the standard big bang epoch. Producing significant perturbations during the earlier epoch would require a rather careful design of the function c(t). The large entropy inside the horizon nowadays can also be accounted for in this scenario.
[*]Cosmologies with Varying Light-Speed, John D. Barrow, Physical Review D 59(4): art. no. 043515, February 15, 1999.
Abstract: We analyze a generalization of general relativity that incorporates a cosmic time variation of the velocity of light in vacuum, c, and the Newtonian gravitation "constant" G proposed by Albrecht and Magueijo. We find exact solutions for Friedmann universes and determine the rate of variation of c required to solve the flatness and classical cosmological constant problems. Potential problems with this approach to the resolution of the flatness and classical cosmological constant problems are highlighted. Reformulations are suggested which give the theory a more desirable limit as a theory of varying G in the limit of constant c and its relationship to theories with varying electron charge and constant c are discussed.
[*]Charge conservation and time-varying speed of light, S.J. Landau et al., Physical Review D 63(8): art. no. 081303, April 15 2001.
Abstract: It has been recently claimed that cosmologies with a time dependent speed of light might solve some of the problems of the standard cosmological scenario, as well as inflationary scenarios. In this Rapid Communication we show that most of these models, when analyzed in a consistent way, lend to large violations of charge conservation. Thus, they are severely constrained by experiment, including those where c is a power of the scale factor and those whose source term is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor. In addition, early universe scenarios with a sudden change of c related to baryogenesis are discarded.
[*]A Search for Time Variation of the Fine Structure Constant, J.K. Webb et al., Physical Review Letters 82: 884-887, February 1, 1999.
Abstract: An order of magnitude sensitivity gain is described for using quasar spectra to investigate possible time or space variation in the fine structure constant alpha. Applied to a sample of 30 absorption systems, spanning redshifts 0.5 lt z lt 1.6, we derive limits on variations in alpha over a wide range of epochs. For the whole sample, Delta alpha/alpha = (-1.1 +/- 0.4) x 10^-5. This deviation is dominated by measurements at z gt 1, where Delta alpha/alpha = (-1.9 +/- 0.5) x 10(-5). For z lt 1, Delta alpha/alpha = (-0.2 +/- 0.4) x 10^-5. While this is consistent with a time-varying alpha, further work is required to explore possible systematic errors in the data, although careful searches have so far revealed none.
[*]Possible evidence for a variable fine-structure constant from QSO absorption lines: motivations, analysis and results, M.T. Murphy et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 327(4): 1208-1222, November 11 2001 (One of four companion papers in this issue of MNRAS).
Abstract: An experimental search for variation in the fundamental coupling constants is strongly motivated by modern high-energy physics theories. Comparison of quasar (QSO) absorption-line spectra with laboratory spectra provides a sensitive probe for variability of the fine structure constant, alpha, over cosmological time-scales. We have previously developed and applied a new method providing an order-of-magnitude gain in precision over previous optical astrophysical constraints. Here we extend that work by including new quasar spectra of damped Lyman-alpha absorption systems. We also reanalyse our previous lower-redshift data and confirm our initial results. The constraints on alpha come from simultaneous fitting of absorption lines of subsets of the following species: Mg I, Mg ii, Al ii, Al iii, Si ii, Cr ii, Fe ii, Ni II and Zn II. We present a detailed description of our methods and results based on an analysis of 49 quasar absorption systems (towards 28 QSOs) covering the redshift range 0.5 lt z lt 3.5. There is statistical evidence for a smaller alpha at earlier epochs: Delta alpha/alpha = (-0.72 +/- 0.18) x 10^-5. The new and original samples are independent but separately yield consistent and significant non-zero values of Delta alpha/alpha. We summarize the results of a thorough investigation of systematic effects published in a companion paper. The value we quote above is the raw value, not corrected for any of these systematic effects. The only significant systematic effects so far identified, if removed from our data, would lead to a more significant deviation of Delta alpha/alpha from zero.[/list]

Cable, Tim T.'s post is complete but one thing he posted a while back that made a lot of sense to me was that dark matter and dark energy just didn't interact with light. If there were no evidence for their existence, we wouldn't be discussing them.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

DM/DE doesn't interact with light.
so we don't sse it, but galaxy's cohesion suggests there must be DM/DE.

what I'm trying to xplain, is perhaps garvity doesn't work the way we think if applied at galaxy as a whole.

a matter of scale:
QM, works on infinitesimal scale.
at bigger scale ( up to solar system scale) we have other laws of physics ( non linearity, certanty ... which contrast with QM )
perhaps, we have to write other laws, for higher scale ( galaxies ).

ie. our laws of gravity works at sun's vicinity ( within solar sytem )and perhaps we are extrapolating wrongly.

in this case there's no DM/DE, just another gravity at that bigger scale.

That question is addressed here.Just a reminder do you consider Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven being a crank?

In 1986, Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven postulated both an electrical galactic model and an electric solar model.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/darkmatter.htm
Text near the end of that page
The simple application of the Lorentz force equation ("crossing" the direction, v, of the current into the direction, B, of the magnetic field) yields a rotational force. Not only does this effect explain the "mysterious" tangential velocities of the outer stars in galaxies, but also (in scaled down version) the observed fact that our Sun rotates faster at its equator than at higher (solar) latitudes.
Anthony Peratt site
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

There are observational constraints we can place on this statement. First of all, we see DM in many different forms of observation: in particular we see it in more than just dynamical models of galaxies. Moreover, DM is exactly what we EXPECT to see from the CMB and the Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Therefore, it's going to be hard to say that, simply, there is no DM.

[/quote]
a matter of scale:
QM, works on infinitesimal scale.
at bigger scale ( up to solar system scale) we have other laws of physics ( non linearity, certanty ... which contrast with QM )
perhaps, we have to write other laws, for higher scale ( galaxies ). [/quote]

Well, then, you have to deal with gravitational lensing and basic properties of light which don't change on those scales but give us good constraints on how much we CAN change these things. MOND and MOND-like ideas do not explain the basic theory behind unification any better than the standard theory, and since the standard theory is consistent where MOND isn't, I say we go with it.

Well, you can't get away that easy. DM/DE HAVE to behave in very particular ways. We know this because of the Big Bang model that's well confirmed observationally. In particular, you need COLD dark matter that freezes out and forms halos (thus structure). If it's simply a changing force, what drives structure formation? How would anything get close enough to "clump"? See, that's the major problem, dark matter clumps whereas MOND theories don't predict structure formation as far as I can see.

With Dark Energy, one way to look at it is as an "antigravity", so you've got us there! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Orion, rember, electric-cosmos basically has too many problems to work out correctly. We've gone through this all before. If you're going to keep reposting the cosmological idiocy that's represented by that site, you're going to have to tell us what exactly to look for.

Truly, there is plasma in the universe. This does NOT, however, solve all cosmological problems.

cable: what I'm trying to xplain, is perhaps garvity doesn't work the way we think if applied at galaxy as a whole.

There is a minority opinion amonst some cosmologists, who agree with this view. MOND cosmology ("Modified Dynamics") dispenses with dark matter, in favor of a slightly altered mathematical form for gravitational dynamics (see The MOND pages). MOND is an alternative undergoing examination even as we speak. Recent observations from the CHANDRA X-ray satellite cast doubt on MOND (see October 22 2002 press release, and the paper Chandra Evidence for a Flattened, Triaxial Dark Matter Halo in the Elliptical Galaxy NGC 720, D.A. Buote, et al., Astrophysical Journal 577(1): 183-196, Part 1, September 20, 2002).

Most cosmologists do not accept the MOND approach, because "dark matter" seems much lass drastic as a solution to the problem, compared to rewriting the dynamics. There is also a paucity of evidence for MOND like effects at short range (though the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft has been suggested as evidence). I think MOND is less likely to work out in the end, than simple dark matter.

Orion38: That question is addressed here. Just a reminder do you consider Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven being a crank?

The plasma cosmology put forth originally by Alfven, cannot be today considered as anything except pure "crank", as far as I am concerned.

Remember that, when Alfven came up with his ideas, in the 40's & 50's, cosmology was a wide open game. Big Bang and Steady State cosmology were equal players. Alfven's cosmology had as much chance as any other, so little was known at the time.

But since then, huge strides have been made. Many alternative cosmologies have been flatly ruled out. Steady state cosmology still exists, in the form of the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) of Hoyle, Narlikar & Wickramasinghe (see Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal Narlikar & Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39: 211-248, 2001), but is still not without problems.

Plasma cosmology is one that has been flatly ruled out. I have a harsh view of the authors of the electric cosmos pages, and consider them to be simple crackpots (see On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis). Their cosmology is in fact quite different from Alfven's anyway, they are just trying to ride the coattails of his name.

Well it seem than Hannes Alfven have continuated to work on his cosmological model at least until 1986.

Note than i not agree with the electrical Sun model presented by Thornhill who I think is his personal vision and not the work of Alfven and Peratt.
Why if the Plasma Universe model presented by Peratt is sanctioned by an official gov.energy dep.(In association with the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society)if the Plasma universe model is crank ?

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-04 22:04 ]</font>

Orion-- there IS plasma in the universe, it just doesn't answer all the questions. Some people can be good researchers in one area and be totally awful in another. Plasma universe ideas are good examples of this.

According to Peratt this is 99% of the universe who is made of plasma and the dominating force in a plasma is the electromagnetic force.

The first state of the universe after the "big bang" was in the plasma state...

DStahl resume this so well in big bang interpretation thread:
"After the period of nucleosynthesis, in the first 20 minutes or a bit less after the collapse of inflation, the temperature of the universe was simply to high to allow electrons to be captured permanently by atomic nucleii. All the matter in the universe--mostly hydrogen and helium--existed as a plasma, ie positively charged atomic nucleii and a sea of free electrons."

It is easy to see than after the cooling the plasma begin to form clump.

Structure of the Plasma Universe
Wherever plasma exist, they produce prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. In particular, X- and gamma rays...
Hot plasma also emit radiation of lower energy, such as visible and radio waves (we can both see lightning and hear it on a receiver). *However, the emission does not always have a thermal origin*. For example, unknowing human have viewed synchrotron radiation (from electrons spiraling at nearly the speed of light in a magnetic field) from the Crab nebula for centuries...
Alfvén, who later won a Nobel prize in physics for his solar studies, proposed hat streams of electrons move at nearly the speed of light along magnetic-field lines not only in Earth's magnetosphere and above the Sun, but also through the cosmos. If so, sheets and ropes of electric current should crisscross the universe in ever-increasing sizes.

Cellular and Filamentary Structure Of The Universe:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/pl...rse.intro.html
These currents, Alfvén thought, should give the universe a cellular and filamentary structure. At the time of this suggestion, supporting evidence in the form of huge filaments, sheets, and walls of galaxies were unknown.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-05 13:38 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-05 13:49 ]</font>