Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Joe L. Ogan on 06/02/2010 20:31:48
-
What are Electric Universe principles? I see this mentioned in the Thunderbolt Forum and some of the things expressed seem to negate the Theory of the Big Bang. Perhaps a little discussion will clear up some of the information. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
What are Electric Universe principles? I see this mentioned in the Thunderbolt Forum and some of the things expressed seem to negate the Theory of the Big Bang. Perhaps a little discussion will clear up some of the information. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
Never heard of it [;D]
Can you provide a brief description in your own words?
-
What are Electric Universe principles? I see this mentioned in the Thunderbolt Forum and some of the things expressed seem to negate the Theory of the Big Bang. Perhaps a little discussion will clear up some of the information. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
Never heard of it [;D]
Can you provide a brief description in your own words?
It is a little complicated for me to summarize. I found it again in Google entitled "The Simple Electric Universe". I know this goes against current thinking but I found the concept (Theory) rather interesting. I think one should keep an open mind about new concepts. I would just like your opinion. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
I think one should keep an open mind about new concepts.
In science, you should only keep an open mind about new concepts until they can't stand up to observational or experimental evidence, as those are the ways we have of checking our theories. Also, if a new theory doesn't offer any new insights or predictions, it's not useful from a scientific standpoint. From what (admittedly little) I've read on this theory, it's contradicted by what's observed in the universe. It would probably take someone better versed in cosmology to explain in detail what's wrong with it, however.
-
Simply put, the electric universe idea is that the dynamics of the universe are determined by electrical currents. This arose from the work of plasma physicist Hannes Alfven, who proposed that the universe is a collection of regions of ordinary matter and antimatter that occaisionally interact and explode (originally named the plasma universe theory). The pressure of this explsion creates a region of expansion and then collapse. The universe as we know it would be inside this region.
No regions of antimatter have been observed. The best evidence against the theory is that the ratio of light elements seen in the universe could not have been produced by a matter-antimatter explosion. The required conditions to produce this ration have been worked out in detail (thanks to the Cold War and the technology required to predict nuclear processes in bombs, but that's another story), and they rule out the plasma universe theory.
Later followers of the idea tried to incorporate electrical currents throughout cosmological dynamics. In order to produce the most direct evidence for this, one has to establish that there are significant electrical currents spanning large areas in the universe. This is hard to do and it's hard to establish that there aren't such currents.
The real problem that electric universe theorists have is in explaining the relationship between redshift and distance to an observed object. This rather complicated relationship has a systematic explanation through gravity, a systematic explanation that electricity plays no role in. It might be possible to add electrical currents in, but this would mean that the systematic explanation currently used in astronomy is off, probably in different ways in different uses. Electric universe theorists have to explain how the varied observations of the universe get the exact and converging results that they do, even thought they are all using the wrong systematic explanation in different ways.
The particularly hard detail for electric universe theorists is why the relationship between redshift and distance changes in one eay as we look farther away and then changes back the other way as we look even farther back. Additionally, this change in redshift corresponds to the time dilation observed in the objects seen at these distances. As far as I know, the electric universe theory has no reason for a changing redshift to distance relationship of the kind observed and no reason for time dilaiton at all other than that associated with the standard gravitational explanation.
(According to wikipedia, PJE Peebles has a rundown of the evidence against the plasma universe idea in Principles of Physical Cosmology. It's a good book, but my copy has gone missing so I cannot confirm this. It would be a good place to look for the take in cosmology about the theory, but it is a tough read in places for one not used to looking at physics texts. Historian Helge Kragh gives the theory little attention in Cosmology and Controversy, mostly because, as he notes, it weas never really fully developed into a cosmological theory and most supporters of the theory did little but attempt to find fault in the standard cosmological model. Over time, the faults they have pointed out have been washed away.)
-
large scale electromagnetic fields are very small. If they weren't they would be directly observable in their effects on spectrum lines. Thus does not mean that such fields are not significant in the way structures develop. Until relatively recently the modellers of the development of star clusters galaxies and galaxy clusters have concentrated on purely gravitational processes and once dark matter is accounted for from the observations of galaxy rotations quite a good fit can be found between observed structures and modelled ones. however the effect of residual magnetic fields is now being studied in relation to star formation and galaxy structures and matched to infra red details. It is clear that adding electromagnetic effects will not cause a revolution but they will probably explain some discrepancies in the models. We should understand a lot more in a few years time when the results from the latest probe are analysed.
-
Joe normally I would research the concept and then present my view, but PhysBang have already presented a fair view of it as well as good arguments. I can give you a link that discuss it further though On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html) And if you mail me I'll give you a link to a site discussing it more in length, that is if you feel that you need a more in depth study.
chers
Yoron.
-
Joe normally I would research the concept and then present my view, but PhysBang have already presented a fair view of it as well as good arguments. I can give you a link that discuss it further though On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis (http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html) And if you mail me I'll give you a link to a site discussing it more in length, that is if you feel that you need a more in depth study.
chers
Yoron.
Hi, Yoron. I think that would be very interesting. I looked for your email but it is hidden. My email should be shown. I thank you for the information. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
Joe, at the top of the screen in the browser window (TNS) you'll find 'Messages' check there.