Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

My father is a generally intelligent person, however he has latched onto a theory which I believe to be completely incorrect.

He doesn't believe in gravity, but rather subscribes to an 'Electrical Theory of the Universe', see the website The Electric Universe.

I've looked into it enough to realize that it flies completely in the face of current physics models, but I'm not qualified to debunk it. I know it's almost certainly incorrect - extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all - but I can't demonstrate it.

So my question is this: Are there any observable behaviors which are inconsistent with the theory's predictions, or are there any demonstrable disproofs for this theory? What evidence can I present against it?

Edit: Sorry for the delay in this, but here's a link to a series of Youtube videos on the electrical theory of the universe (which seems to be the term used by it's proponents, alternatively called the plasma theory).

6-part Youtube video:

share|improve this question

closed as too broad by ACuriousMind, Kyle Kanos, John Rennie, 0celo7, Kyle Oman Apr 26 at 22:12

There are either too many possible answers, or good answers would be too long for this format. Please add details to narrow the answer set or to isolate an issue that can be answered in a few paragraphs. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

5  
Could you describe the electrical theory? –  Dan Dec 31 '11 at 21:32
3  
Out of curiosity, how does the electrical theory of the universe explain the behaviour of 3 seperated bodies/point particles, which all attract each other? –  NikolajK Jan 1 '12 at 0:04
    
I found the question interesting because physicists extrapolate to the universe in general from their measurements of the behavior of electromagnetic beams. Maybe instead of "electrical theory of the universe" an "electromagnetic theory of the universe" will be more useful. –  Zeynel Jan 1 '12 at 17:05
    
You can look up the "electromagnetic worldview" and Max Abraham for some pointers. It is essentially discredited by relativity, which ruled out mechanical ethers. –  Ron Maimon Jan 1 '12 at 20:34
3  
This question would definitely be much improved by linking to some resources describing the "electrical theory." –  David Z Jan 2 '12 at 3:04

1 Answer 1

From my cursory overview of the stuff these people have online, there are a few really glaring problems:

  1. First and foremost, it doesn't appear that the electric universe model makes any quantitative predictions. I don't see any models for how stars and galaxies are supposed to form and behave, just a bunch of words about how gravitational models make too many assumptions or rely on too much theory, whatever that means. Really, this theory is not even wrong.
  2. Also, it appears that these models don't really discuss the equivalence principle. If you're going to use electricity to explain gravity, you need to explain why the rate at which something falls is independent of that object's charge (minus electric self-force), and also independent of that object's mass. Why do all objects near the Earth fall with the same acceleration?
  3. While dark matter and dark energy are problems, they solve problems that arise within a quantitative model. In particular, the standard $\Lambda$CDM models very precisely predict the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in our universe. If the 'electric' universe can't do that, then it has a bigger problem than dark matter/dark energy
  4. Also, these people seem to believe in an eternal static universe with an infinite extent. They need to explain how they resolve Olbers' paradox

This list is hardly exhaustive, but these are a few starting points.

EDIT: This theory appears to be describing this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

Plasma cosmology doesn't predict Hubble's Law, the relative abundances of the elements or the cosmic microwave background.

share|improve this answer
1  
a p.s. to this would be that all 20th century particle physics data is ignored by this proposed "theory", standard model and all. –  anna v Jan 29 '13 at 4:47
    
@Giffyguy: great. Point me to a calculation where the electric universe calculates the relative helium abundance correctly in the absence of dark matter. –  Jerry Schirmer Apr 25 at 3:10
    
@Giffyguy, um, that's not what $\Lambda$CDM does. And the existing cosmological models come at the relative abundance of dark matter using various methodologies, all of which predict the same result. –  Jerry Schirmer Apr 25 at 4:01
    
Also, why is there a ton of plasma toward the edges of glalaxies, but none near galactic cores? Why does it seem important for globular clusters, but not for solar system dynamics? –  Jerry Schirmer Apr 25 at 4:02
1  
@JerrySchirmer You know what, I apologize if I offended you (or insulted your work) with the preachy YouTube video and my other comments (I deleted them because I am currently unprepared to defend them). I really appreciate your detailed rebuttals, because it gives me something to track down and research, even if it ends up demonstrating to me why the EU theories are truly indefensible. I'm going to do more research on this, and see if I can get any of the PhDs from the Electric Universe community to weigh in on these specific problems. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting. –  Giffyguy May 4 at 17:01

protected by Qmechanic Jan 28 '13 at 15:56

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.