Editing Plasma cosmology (section)

==Comparison with mainstream astrophysics==
Standard astronomical modeling and theories attempt to incorporate all known [[physics]] into descriptions and explanations of observed phenomena, with [[Gravitation|gravity]] playing a dominant role on the largest scales as well as in [[celestial mechanics]] and [[Stellar dynamics|dynamics]]. To that end, both [[Keplerian]] orbits and [[Albert Einstein]]'s [[general relativity|General Theory of Relativity]] are generally used as the underlying frameworks for modeling astrophysical systems and [[structure formation]], while [[high-energy astronomy]] and [[particle physics in cosmology]] additionally appeal to [[electromagnetism|electromagnetic]] processes including plasma physics and [[radiative transfer]] to explain relatively small scale energetic processes observed in the [[x-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]s. Due to overall [[charge neutrality]], [[plasma (physics)|plasma physics]] does not provide for very long-range interactions in astrophysics even while much of the matter in the universe is [[plasma (physics)|plasma]].<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QJ08AAAAIAAJ|title=Accretion Power in Astrophysics|last1=Frank|first1=Juhan|last2=Frank|first2=Carlos|last3=Frank|first3=J. R.|last4=King|first4=A. R.|last5=Raine|first5=Derek J.|date=1985-04-18|publisher=CUP Archive|isbn=9780521245302|language=en|page=25}}</ref> (See [[astrophysical plasma]] for more.)

Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the [[galaxy formation and evolution|evolution of galaxies]]<ref name=Peratt1986 /> and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.<ref name=Alfven1978 /> In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat [[galaxy rotation curve|rotation curves]] of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for [[dark matter]] in galaxies and with the need for [[supermassive black hole]]s in galaxy centres to power [[quasar]]s and [[active galactic nucleus|active galactic nuclei]].<ref name="Peratt1983"/><ref name=Peratt1986 /> However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",<ref name=Siegel2006 /> i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (10<sup>18</sup> amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.<ref name="Colafrancesco2006" >{{cite journal | last1 = Colafrancesco | first1 = S. | last2 = Giordano | first2 = F. | year = 2006 | title = The impact of magnetic field on the cluster M – T relation | journal = Astronomy and Astrophysics | volume = 454 | issue = 3| pages = L131–134 | bibcode=2006A&A...454L.131C | doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20065404|arxiv = astro-ph/0701852 | s2cid = 1477289 }} recount: "Numerical simulations have shown that the wide-scale magnetic fields in massive clusters produce variations of the cluster mass at the level of ~ 5 − 10% of their unmagnetized value ... Such variations are not expected to produce strong variations in the relative [mass-temperature] relation for massive clusters."</ref> Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the [[cosmic microwave background]] and the nature of [[quasar]]s, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe.

Some of the places where plasma cosmology supporters are most at odds with standard explanations include the need for their models to have light element production without [[Big Bang nucleosynthesis]], which, in the context of Alfvén–Klein cosmology, has been shown to produce excessive [[X-ray]]s and [[gamma ray]]s beyond that observed.<ref>{{cite journal | year = 1985 | title = Big Bang Photosynthesis and Pregalactic Nucleosynthesis of Light Elements | journal = Astrophysical Journal | volume = 293 | pages = L53–L57 | bibcode=1985ApJ...293L..53A|doi = 10.1086/184490 | last1 = Audouze | first1 = J. | last2 = Lindley | first2 = D. | last3 = Silk | first3 = J. }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Epstein | display-authors = etal   | year = 1976 | title = The origin of deuterium | doi = 10.1038/263198a0 | journal = Nature | volume = 263 | issue = 5574   | pages = 198–202|bibcode = 1976Natur.263..198E | s2cid = 4213710 }} point out that if proton fluxes with energies greater than 500 MeV were intense enough to produce the observed levels of deuterium, they would also produce about 1000 times more gamma rays than are observed.</ref> Plasma cosmology proponents have made further proposals to explain light element abundances, but the attendant issues have not been fully addressed.<ref>Ref. 10 in "Galactic Model of Element Formation" (Lerner, ''IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science'' Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1989 [http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061229074857/http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Galactic%20Model%20of%20Element%20Formation.pdf|date=2006-12-29}}) is J.Audouze and J.Silk, "Pregalactic Synthesis of Deuterium" in ''Proc. ESO Workshop on "Primordial Helium"'', 1983, pp. 71–75 [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983prhe.work...71A] Lerner includes a paragraph on "Gamma Rays from D Production" in which he claims that the expected gamma ray level is consistent with the observations. He cites neither Audouze nor Epstein in this context, and does not explain why his result contradicts theirs.</ref> In 1995 Eric Lerner published his alternative explanation for the [[cosmic microwave background|cosmic microwave background radiation]] (CMBR).<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lerner | first1 = Eric | date = 1995 | title = Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data | url = http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf | journal = Astrophysics and Space Science | volume = 227 | issue =  1–2| pages = 61–81 | doi = 10.1007/bf00678067 | bibcode = 1995Ap&SS.227...61L | s2cid = 121500864 | access-date = 2012-05-30 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110715083205/http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic%20Radio%20Absorption%20And%20The%20COBE%20Data.pdf | archive-date = 2011-07-15 | url-status = dead }}</ref> He argued that his model explained the fidelity of the CMB spectrum to that of a black body and the low level of anisotropies found, even while the level of isotropy at 1:10<sup>5</sup> is not accounted for to that precision by any alternative models. Additionally, the sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of the CMB anisotropies was greatly advanced by [[Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe|WMAP]] and the [[Planck (spacecraft)|Planck satellite]] and the statistics of the signal were so in line with the predictions of the Big Bang model, that the CMB has been heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Spergel | first1 = D. N. | display-authors = etal   | date = 2003 | title = (WMAP collaboration), "First year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) observations: Determination of cosmological parameters | journal = Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series | volume = 148 | issue = 1| pages = 175–194 | doi=10.1086/377226|arxiv = astro-ph/0302209 |bibcode = 2003ApJS..148..175S | s2cid = 10794058 }}</ref> The [[Cosmic microwave background#Primary anisotropy|acoustic peaks]] in the early universe are fit with high accuracy by the predictions of the Big Bang model, and, to date, there has never been an attempt to explain the detailed spectrum of the anisotropies within the framework of plasma cosmology or any other alternative cosmological model.