I just noticed the OP's 2020 article and have a few comments about what it says ...
Last year, astronomers finally managed to examine a far sparser region of space — the expanse between galaxy clusters. There, they discovered the largest magnetic field yet: 10 million light-years of magnetized space spanning the entire length of this “filament” of the cosmic web. A second magnetized filament has already been spotted elsewhere in the cosmos by means of the same techniques. “We are just looking at the tip of the iceberg, probably,” said Federica Govoni of the National Institute for Astrophysics in Cagliari, Italy, who led the first detection.
The question is: Where did these enormous magnetic fields come from?
“It clearly cannot be related to the activity of single galaxies or single explosions or, I don’t know, winds from supernovae,” said Franco Vazza, an astrophysicist at the University of Bologna who makes state-of-the-art computer simulations of cosmic magnetic fields. “This goes much beyond that.”
One possibility is that cosmic magnetism is primordial, tracing all the way back to the birth of the universe. In that case, weak magnetism should exist everywhere, even in the “voids” of the cosmic web — the very darkest, emptiest regions of the universe. The omnipresent magnetism would have seeded the stronger fields that blossomed in galaxies and clusters.
As you can see, the mainstream believes that magnetism came first. So now, not only do they need primordial black hole how (one gnome), they need primordial magnetism (gnome two). According to their theory, that primordial magnetism seeded a process … involving plasma (of course0 … that increased the magnetic fields to what we see today in galaxies and clusters (see
https://news.mit.edu/2022/how-universe- ... field-0525 ).
Now here’s a very revealing comment …
Still, in all the years of talk about the Hubble tension, it’s perhaps strange that no one considered magnetism before. According to Pogosian, who is a professor at Simon Fraser University in Canada, most cosmologists hardly think about magnetism. “Everyone knows it’s one of those big puzzles,” he said. But for decades, there was no way to tell whether magnetism is truly ubiquitous and thus a primordial component of the cosmos, so cosmologists largely stopped paying attention.
In short, they refused to listen to what the EU/PC theorists were saying at the time. They wouldn't even debate them about the topic. I call that willful ignorance, which I think is still prevalent in the community today. How can they not have known there would be ubiquitous magnetic fields and filaments of plasma when the article itself states (just as EU/PC theorists told them) …
Magnetic fields arise anytime electric charge flows.
Instead, they turn around and say something utterly stupid …
Ruth Durrer, a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Geneva, explained that magnetism is the only force apart from gravity that can shape the large-scale structure of the cosmos, because only magnetism and gravity can “reach out to you” across vast distances. Electricity, by contrast, is local and short-lived, since the positive and negative charge in any region will neutralize overall.
They are still apparently clueless. Here they talk about measuring magnetic fields in a filament …
In their paper last year, van Weeren and 28 co-authors inferred the presence of a magnetic field in the filament between galaxy clusters Abell 399 and Abell 401 from the way the field redirects high-speed electrons and other charged particles passing through it. As their paths twist in the field, these charged particles release faint “synchrotron radiation.” … snip … The filament looks magnetized throughout, not just near the galaxy clusters that are moving toward each other from either end. … snip … The presence of enormous magnetic fields in at least these two filaments provides important new information. “It has spurred quite some activity,” van Weeren said, “because now we know that magnetic fields are relatively strong.”
Would any of that surprised EU/PC cosmologists? NO.
But these people are surprised, even after being told to expect ubiquitous filaments and magnetic back in the 1980s.
And they’re still not really listening …
If these magnetic fields arose in the infant universe, the question becomes: How? … snip …. In 1991, Vachaspati proposed that magnetic fields might have arisen during the electroweak phase transition — the moment, a split second after the Big Bang, when the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces became distinct. Others have suggested that magnetism materialized microseconds later, when protons formed. Or soon after that: The late astrophysicist Ted Harrison argued in the earliest primordial magnetogenesis theory in 1973 that the turbulent plasma of protons and electrons might have spun up the first magnetic fields. Still others have proposed that space became magnetized before all this, during cosmic inflation — the explosive expansion of space that purportedly jump-started the Big Bang itself. It’s also possible that it didn’t happen until the growth of structures a billion years later.
Maybe they’d already know the answer to this question, if they’d listened earlier, rather than focusing on gnomes.
