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, no registration required.

Possible Duplicate:
How to debunk ‘The Electric Universe’?

I am just wondering why there exists such a strong feeling within the physics community against theories such as Plasma Physics and The Electric Universe.

Every single atom is governed by electromagnetic forces, molecules are formed through chemical (electromagnetic) bonds, the universe is 99% plasma which is an great conductor of electricity, the sun is made of plasma and bombards the solar system with electromagnetic energy, centers of galaxies radiate enormous amount of electromagnetic energy, etc.

It is such a simple and elegant solution that truly explains everything in a rational way which, most importantly, can be experimentally verified. It can explain the true nature of mass and matter, gravity, how our sun works, how the universe works, weather systems, earthquakes, and many other phenomena that are mysteries to modern science.

So my question is: can someone explain to me why mainstream scientists are SO against these theories that they won't even consider them? I'm not saying they are 100% correct, but why not at least look at the theories and consider their implications?

Here are some articles I have found that explain many of the things I am talking about (no affiliation with me, I just think they well-written):

Can any real physicist explain to me why these theories could not be at least plausible? I am not trying to create controversy, but merely trying to understand why they seem so outrageous.

share|improve this question
3  
Could you explain what the content of this theory actually is, and how it could be experimentally verified? After reading the links I don't think I can. They are mostly a list of phenomena predominantly in solar and planetary physics that cannot currently be explained, with the word 'electric' generously sprinkled throughout. To convince physicists that a new theory is correct, you must provide accurate explanations for everything we can already explain (say, hadron scattering experiments in the LHC), while also providing new predictions or a more intuitive understanding of existing ones. –  Mark Mitchison Jan 28 '13 at 15:18
1  
On the other hand, the internet is full of people who didn't work hard enough to understand modern physics and who instead just gave up and declared it to be 'too mathematical to be true'. Since most of their predictions end up being complete rubbish, most physicists rightly ignore them without looking too deeply into what they are saying. –  Mark Mitchison Jan 28 '13 at 15:20
1  
To give an example, this page of the site you linked states that nucleons are composed of charged particles in stable, classical orbits. This is in direct violation of experimentally tested laws of electrodynamics, which predict that such an orbit is unstable due to the radiation emitted by charged particles in such an orbit. This is one of the problems resolved by quantum mechanics. Any new theory that denies quantum mechanics must explain how a charged particle can be in a 'stable, classical orbit'. –  Mark Mitchison Jan 28 '13 at 15:21
3  
"Isn't this a better model than dark matter?" Except that the star are manifestly the same kind of things as the sun. We measure their spectra and their pulsations and their masses. Such a thing is bulk neutral (we can also measure the relative strength of gravity and E&M), and if they weren't it would show in the spectra. These kinds of "I'm going to reexplain everything with one simple theory" claims usually have a hidden assumption that there are whole subfields full of blithering idiots. Perhaps it would be a good idea to talk to some of the people working in those fields. –  dmckee Jan 28 '13 at 15:38
2  
@Andy Scientists are always trying to find a simple, unified explanation, so your impulse to find such an explanation in the Electric Universe is admirable. It's just that, as pointed out by several commenters, the theory makes a whole bunch of predictions that were proved to be completely wrong long before the guy who cooked up this theory was even born. The most important thing about scientific theories is that they are right, not beautiful. “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” - TH Huxley –  Mark Mitchison Jan 28 '13 at 15:47
show 9 more comments

marked as duplicate by Qmechanic Jan 28 '13 at 15:36

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

Well, they may be cool, but what about nuclear forces? What about the standard model? I mean, it works so well, so why invent a new theory when you already have one that works so well?

EDIT: Plus the links you provided sound kinda like 'on the other side' stuff... Something that ppl who are real scientist don't like, because it's usually not testable, or are kinda far fetched...

share|improve this answer
    
Yeah, I was kind of hesitant to put those links for that reason, but these theories have been put forward by renowned scientists (Hannes Alfvén, Kristian Birkeland), these articles just synthesize the concepts well. –  Andy Jan 28 '13 at 15:45
add comment

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