A Simple (maybe) Question

[CuriousMan]

Exactly what is "The Electric Universe?
Can you all provide me with a simple definition of what the theory is? I've seen so many different definitions, I'm quite confused. I'd be happy to listen to more than one opinion.

Thanks in Advance...

Mr Curious

[Ion01]

This is what Thornhill says at http://www.holoscience.com

The Electric Universe model is a coherent "Big Picture" of our situation in the universe, spanning many disciplines. It highlights repeated electrical patterns at all scales that enable laboratory experiments to explain the strange, energetic events seen, for example, in deep space, on the Sun, and on Jupiter's moon, Io. The Electric Universe works backward in time using observations rather than forward from some idealised theoretical beginning. It provides simple answers to problems that are now clothed in fashionable metaphysics and mysticism. It is more interdisciplinary and inclusive of information than any prior cosmology. It points to practical possibilities far beyond the limits set by current science.

The Electric Universe model grew out of a broad interdisciplinary approach to science. It is not a technique taught in universities. The Electric Universe is based more on observations and experiment than abstract theory. It recognizes connections between diverse disciplines. It concludes that the crucial requirement for understanding the universe is to take fully into account the basic electrical nature of atoms and their interactions. Strangely, this is not the case in conventional cosmology where weaker magnetism and the infinitely weaker force of gravity rule the cosmos. Such a simplification may suit a theoretical physics based on electrical neutrality of matter in Earthly laboratories but it does not apply in space where plasma dominates.


Plasma has been called the "fourth state" of matter, after solids, liquids and gases. Most of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma. A plasma is formed if some of the negatively charged electrons are separated from their host atoms in a gas, leaving the atoms with a positive charge. The negatively charged electrons, and the positively charged atoms (known as positive ions) are then free to move separately under the influence of an applied voltage or magnetic field. Their net movement constitutes an electrical current. So, one of the more important properties of a plasma is that it can conduct electrical current. It does so by forming current filaments that follow magnetic field lines. Filamentary patterns are ubiquitous in the cosmos.

[MGmirkin]

It highlights repeated electrical patterns at all scales that enable laboratory experiments to explain ... strange, energetic events [etc.]

Ask different people and get different answers, I suppose. The "Electric Universe" as referred to on the Thunderbolts.info site is generally a work-in-progress (as is much of science), coming [formulated at least in part] originally from Wal Thornhill (following in the footsteps of many prior and current scientists: Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, Hannes Alfvén, Halton Arp, Gauss, Faraday, Ampère, etc.). However, some aspects have been fleshed out or researched further by others, such as Don Scott.

Largely, it is a recognition that electrical / plasma science has come a long way in the last 50-100 years and can tell us things about the cosmos through understanding how plasma and electricity function here on Earth. Since plasma scales across many orders of magnitude, principles and experiments that can be used in the lab can give us insight into how similar processes might work in the cosmos at large.

While not every question may have an immediate answer at hand, the same can be said of any theory, even the over-developed Big Bang theory.

In any event, the over-arching premise, as far as I've come to understand it is that space is filled with plasma. 99.99% of the visible matter int he universe is in the plasma state. Some call it the 4th state of matter (beyond solids, liquids and gases). Some call it the 1st state of matter, on account of the fact that it appears to be the largest (percentage-wise) detectable proportion of matter in the universe, and because other forms of matter may proceed from it by recombination (IE, a free proton captures a free electrons and together they function as a hydrogen atom, and so on).

With the knowledge that plasma is pervasive, a curious scientist must ask themself what that can tell us about the functioning of the universe, about its structure, its behavior, etc. IE, what do we know about plasma and how can that inform our quest for knowledge about the cosmos?

For one thing, due to the general dissociation of the charge carriers, they're quite free to move about, thus making plasma a highly conductive medium (though not "perfectly" so; there's still some level of finite resistance, etc.). If plasma in the lab is known to be highly conductive, is there any reason to assume that plasma in space is not ALSO highly conductive in the same way?

The typical oversimplified answer is "yes and no; plasma is conductive, but charges are equal and homogenized over large distance, so no imbalance or currents should exist that matter." However, the oversimplified electrostatic analysis saying "everything's hunky-dory" seems to be an incorrect assumption, when looking at large volumes of anecdotal evidence showing that currents DO in fact flow in space and may do things of consequence.

Specifically, magnetic fields are generally agreed in the sciences to be the result of electric currents. Where currents flow, so too a 'magnetic field' is created. The magnetic field is more-or-less the attraction or repulsion between electric currents. The Hyperphysics site, I believe, has a couple good pages on it. I think one of the NASA sites also mentions it. I've probably referenced them elsewhere on the forum, so won't rehash too much. The Wikipedia entry on electric current also makes a fruitful statement:

Electric current can be directly measured with a galvanometer, but this method involves breaking the circuit, which is sometimes inconvenient. Current can also be measured without breaking the circuit by detecting the magnetic field associated with the current.

Magnetic fields are an indicator that electric currents exist in the system being measured. So, it's reasonable to assume that where magnetic fields are detected in space playing instrumental roles in space physics, electric currents are involved (out-of-hand dismissal of currents in space aside).

As a few examples: "Magnetic flux ropes" connect the Earth to the sun (650,000 Amp current impinging on the Arctic atmosphere). A "flux tube" connects Io and Jupiter (1 million Amps, appx).

When trying to figure out whether electric currents, as such, may play a large role in cosmic plasma, an anecdotal case can be pretty easily made that further study is warranted from this perspective. Take for instance star formation:

(Magnetic Fields Crucial To Star Formation, Astronomer Says)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/19 ... 080925.htm

(Star formation? All a bit of a wind up - Magnetically speaking, you understand)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/01/star_formation/

(Newly Seen Force May Help Gravity In Star Formation)
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stellar- ... y-05g.html

(Diamagnetic effects during the early stages of star formation)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... &aid=18077

(Magnetic fields and star formation – new observational results)
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/di ... aid=973140

It seems that a number of sources are coming to the conclusion that magnetic fields are "somehow" involved in a critical way with star formation. But one might ask, is it the magnetic fields themselves or the underlying currents for which they are diagnostic that are the primary movers and shakers?

While there's a little bit of a chicken and egg game that goes on in that conversation, in the end it seems to boil down to the net motion of particles. If the net motion is differential (IE, more of one sign of charge moving in a particular direction and/or more of the opposite sign of charge moving in the opposite direction) then there's said to be a current. Granted the strength of the current may be very low and spread over a larger region than what we typically experience (say with a power cord to a computer). Nonetheless, the effects are still present and may have a non-trivial impact on how the system behaves.

Magnetic fields are now thought to confine / constrict stellar jets:

(Magnetic Fields Confine a Dying Star's Jets)
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/03/04 ... tars-jets/

From an electrical vantage point, that's really not surprising. The "pinch effect" or "plasma pinch" is a well known behavior of plasma that confines and constricts a current such as a spark or lightning in a feedback effect between the current and its magnetic field.

(Pinch)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch

Astronomers talk about "tightly wound field lines" and such, however, "field lines" are nothing more than a helpful visual construct like lines on a weather map or lines of latitude and longitude. There's nothing "physical" in the shape of a line at the points depicted. "Field lines" are simply a way of visually representing the magnetic field strengths and direction in a given region. When the underlying current changes shape, direction or strength, the "field line" topology is immediately redrawn to show the new magnetic field configuration. No snapping, twisting or reconnecting involved... It seems to be a common mistake that astronomers and some electrical engineering students make. Reifying the "field lines" is a pseudo-pedagogical mistake. IE, one thinks one understand what's going on, but not quite.

In a similar vein, magnetic fields have been something of a hot topic of debate when looking at galaxies as well. Our galaxy has a magnetic field, most galaxies most likely have one as well. Current theory is unsatisfactory at best on how those magnetic fields got there. The typical answer is that somehow a "seed field" was emplaced early int he universe and has grown in strength over the age of the universe (or at least the age of the galaxy). However, several independent studies using alternative methods have found supposedly "primordial" galaxies from nearer the beginning of the universe (though that's based on a whole other set of [unsettled] assumptions about redshift, etc. that probably complicate the whole issue) that have as strong or stronger magnetic fields than our own galaxy is presumed to have. That upsets the applecart a bit. Aside from which, there's not really any satisfying answer for what a magnetic "seed field" is or how it got there to begin with, in the case of galaxies. The "Electric Universe" seems to agree with the independent researches of plasma physicist Anthony Peratt with respect to galaxy formation via plasma processes (interacting Birkeland Currents). If galaxy formation is an inherently electrical phenomenon, then magnetic fields would be a natural consequence of the process. In fact, Hannes Alfvén predicted galactic magnetic fields based upon electricity-in-plasma researches long before it was fashionable to do so. Seems a bit lost to history at this point. But, nonetheless.

From the top down, EU appears to posit that the universe is more or less an electrical/plasma machine replete with filamentary currents and circuits that scale across orders of magnitude. Through a process of recombination, the disparate electrical charge carriers (electrons and protons) come together and "neutralize" into the common elements on the periodic table. A process known as Marklund Convection may even preferentially sort these neutralized elements out of solution kind of like salts precipitating out of salt water as it evaporates. Thus, in "neutralized" regions, gravitational interaction may in large part dominate over electrical interaction (as in our solar system, where the planetary orbits are largely successfully predicted by the rules of gravity).

Though, even in our how neck of the woods, electrical things can still happen, as with the aforementioned "magnetic flux ropes" (650,000 Amp currents between the sun and Earth) or the Io-Jupiter interaction (appx 1 million Amp current), etc.

Also, under the electrical interpretation, stars are lit by electrical processes, rather than internal fusion as under the gravitational model. The higher the current density impinging on a star's surface, the higher up the electrical scale it goes from "dark mode" to "glow mode" (brown dwarfs, possibly red dwarfs) to "arc mode" (fully tufted like the solar surface). Wal Thornhill and Don Scott have made analogies to the structure of glow discharge tubes to explain solar behaviors and to make back of the envelope predictions about the behavior of charged particles in space.

Typical anti-"electric star" rhetoric utilizes oversimplified "high school physics" (electrostatics, purporting to show that any electrical excess would quickly neutralize and shut down an electric sun) to show how it's "not possible." However, they generally tend to ignore the electrodynamics (circuit and electric current theory) upon which the electric star hypothesis is formulated. In particular, they sometimes also point to some older articles by Juergens that posited an unobserved "relativistic electron" rain that was thought to be a defining characteristic of the electric star within the solar system.

However, they often have failed to read Thornhill's corrections to Juergens. Thornhill had repositioned the portions of the glow discharge tube analogy with the "positive column" (a nearly "neutral" mix of charged particles, whcih is what is actually observed, with an extremely slow superimposed drift rate) in the interplanetary space, with relativistic electrons expected only very close to the anode (Sun) surface.

The sun's electric field is thus also thought to be responsible for the acceleration of the solar wind away from the sun. Comets are also believed to find an electrical origin tied to the notion of an electric sun. Specifically, they tend to be long period objects spending much of their time in the outer reaches of the solar system or beyond. Their charge tends to balance with that region over long time spans. As they fall through the solar system, they pick up speed and encounter regions of plasma that they become further and further out of balance with, unable to bleed off charge quickly enough. At some point, a Langmuir [plasma] sheath is thought to form around the nucleus (the coma) to insulate the charge on the nucleus from the charge in surrounding space (a common behavior of plasma generally not in common with gases, liquids, solids, etc.). However, if imbalance becomes to great, the nucleus may be put under such strain that it fissions and breaks up to increase the surface area over which it can discharge (much as salt dissolves more quickly when granulated than when in a large crystal, due to the increased surface area of the granules). That comets breaking up have generally not yielded the water, ice and volatiles expected of the Whipple "dirty snowball" model and the most recent Stardust results pointing to an extremely asteroid-like composition of the materials retrieved seems to point in the direction of the electric comet model, in which comets and asteroids aren't much different, being large rocky bodies, with the major difference being charge imabalance with their surrounds and usually a more eccentric orbit.

This is all just my perception of where the EU stands on a number of things and how it differs from the standard model.

Generally the standard model tries to explain everything via gravitational interactions and largely excludes any overarching electrical implications. Where insufficient gravitating matter / mass is detected to account for observations / behaviors, it seems fond of peppering in UNOBSERVED "dark matter," a cosmological "fudge factor" to balance the gravitational books, so-to-speak. The EU crowd remains unconvinced that Dark Matter is any more than an artifact of a falsified model and a cosmological kludge to smooth things over. Whether that turns out to be a fact remains to be seen. However, it seems like the queen of the sciences needs new clothes where Dark Matter is concerned.

More study needed, for sure. But I think it's at least reasonable to attempt to understand things from an electrical vantage point where anecdotal and/or direct evidence point to electrical goings on (or electrical goings on can be reasonably inferred from observed magnetic fields thought to play some nontrivial role).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

There is also a collaborative effort on mytho-historical reconstruction undertaken by Talbott, Thornhill, et al. Talbott's mytho-historical reconstruction was originally published in a book called The Saturn Myth (and possibly others), as well as Thoth newsletters, and possibly Kronos / Aeon / Pensee. I tend to think of it as a separate study, however. Though, some of the later work seems to dovetail with researches by Thornhill in terms of explaining how some of the formations allegedly seen in the ancient sky may have come about, from a physical perspective. Researches, etc., still ongoing. Since it's something of a collaborative project that gets some press time on Thunderbolts.info they sometimes seem to get conflated, or people think that the EU model rests on mytho-historical grounds rather than physical grounds. Not so. While one may occasionally dovetail into the other and Thornhill / Talbott (and others) collaborate quite a bit, they are certainly distinct researches, conceptually, from what I understand... Just to clarify.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[biknewb]

Michael, congratulations on yet another clear, concise summary of the state of the Electric Universe model.

I'd like to add that the different definitions of the model are necessary in this stage of development. Eventually the true model will emerge; until that time I think it is most fruitful to keep options open.
The charge difference between mainstream and EU proponents is high enough to form a double layer and keep these sometimes conflicting individual opinions together.

gerards regards

[junglelord]

Your an excellent teacher, writer, and proponent of the EU.

[Lloyd]

* A galaxy, which is an electric motor or something, begets twin quasars in its active galactic nucleus (AGN), where it has a plasma gun that shoots them out in opposite directions, usually through the poles.
* The quasars start out small, ionized and high velocity, then slowly gain mass and lose ionization and velocity. They grow into new galaxies.
* My guess is that electrical stress breaks the quasar into smaller and smaller plasma balls, which form into a nucleus and 2 or more arms.
* The nucleus eventually forms a plasma gun where new quasars can form.
* The arms form planetary nebulae with smaller plasma guns, which shoot out new star pairs in opposite directions, which are similar to quasars, but much smaller.
* Some stars, maybe brown dwarfs, may also have little plasma guns with which they shoot out planets.
* Our parent brown dwarf star was Saturn. Maybe the other gas giants were also brown dwarfs, or maybe the smaller ones were shot out of Jupiter or Saturn. Maybe Earth and Mars were twins that were shot from Saturn earlier, and Venus and Titan were twins that were shot out last, most recently, maybe in the last ten thousand years.
* I guess the best sites to explain everything are http://kronia.com/thoth.html and http://holoscience.com.
* But you can also see the homepage for links to several other good sites.

[MGmirkin]

Michael, congratulations on yet another clear, concise summary of the state of the Electric Universe model.

Thanks. Glad to help. As always, of course, it's a work in progress.

On the "definitions and questions" front, it sounds tentatively like we might be collaborating on a FAQ page to clear up some common misconceptions and more fully exposit what is and is not part of the model or what processes are claimed (if not proven) to play key roles. IE, which fields and processes might best be able to add to our understanding, going forward.

Disclaimer: No jumping up and down just yet. Might be a slow process to get started, but there are rumblings of things in the works. Too many "debunkers" out there offering straw man arguments against their own limited or incorrect interpretation of what they thing the model is about.

I don't entirely blame them as there is currently not really a central repository for all things educational, academic and EU-related. IE, articles are generally spread over many journals, newsletters and other publications or web sites (one of a number of folks' pet peeves; I still want to resolve that at some point with some kind of central database and citations system, complete with mainstream news archive, though no specific plans are yet in place).

Anyway, the thought is to make a bit clearer and more concise exactly what is being claimed so that more informed discussions may ensue. It may not be overtly technical, but geared toward a lay audience. Personally I do hope that some level of technical detail will be included where appropriate via references for those wishing to delve further into the nuances and technical bits. Can't make any guarantees though.

The charge difference between mainstream and EU proponents is high enough to form a double layer and keep these sometimes conflicting individual opinions together.

Or apart, as the case may be. Seeing as how double layers or plasma sheaths may insulate unlike regions. IE, regions with differing composition, charge, temperature, [opinion ], etc.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

* Our parent brown dwarf star was Saturn. Maybe the other gas giants were also brown dwarfs, or maybe the smaller ones were shot out of Jupiter or Saturn. Maybe Earth and Mars were twins that were shot from Saturn earlier, and Venus and Titan were twins that were shot out last, most recently, maybe in the last ten thousand years.
* I guess the best sites to explain everything are http://kronia.com/thoth.html and http://holoscience.com.

Again, this is an example of the dovetailing of one discipline into the other. IE, Dave Talbott's (among others) researches in the field of "Saturn Myth" and the mytho-historical record (so-called). From his (and others') researches, a theory has come about with respect to the "golden age" having been a real time within the early memory of the human race, when the Earth existed under a different "sun" a "primeval" or "first" sun. Many cultures have traditions equating Saturn with such a first / best central luminary. Which makes no sense from the perspective of today's solar system. Nonetheless it's said to all be there in the earliest mythologies from the myth-making era, according to Talbott, Cardona and a few others who have published on the topic.

The dovetailing comes from the EU's perspective on a possibly mechanism for planet formation via fissioning / ejection from a parent body while under extreme electrical stress. IE, a central object may fission into smaller ejected objects to lessen the overall electrical load, much like a fissioning capacitor divides the excess load over multiple fragments (or a comet is said to do under the Electric Universe / Electric Comet model). It has been suggested that the ejected bodies should have similar velocity with respect to the parent moving through space, and may become either satellites, or otherwise entrained with the progenitor body. So, sometimes Talbott might have an idea and wonder whether it's plausible physically, while Thornhill or others may offer a possible scenario as to how such a thing might occur, if at all.

At least personally, I still tend to hold the disciplines separately, despite certain dovetailing moments. Some however prefer to concatenate them together due to the points of dovetailing. However there then seems to be confusion about whether the cart is being put in front of the horse (IE, is the EU predicated strictly upon mytho-history, or does it predicate itself upon existing lab results, experiments and extrapolations; I think the latter is true). The Saturn Myth or Saturn Thesis is certainly predicated upon mythology from the earliest myth-making eras. Thornhill has said in various venues that the original inspiration behind the EU was readings of Velikovsky and an exploration of physics and whether anything Velikovsky said could have merits. However, the physics come from experiments and forward-looking extrapolations of Birkeland, Langmuir, Faraday, Lorentz, Ampere, Gauss, Alfvén, CER Bruce, Eric W. Crew, etc.

Independent researchers not connected with the project seem to always be turning out interesting results that could easily fit within the paradigm. Though they may not know of nor should they be considered to endorse the Thunderbolts group. Anthony Peratt has made some interesting contributions to Plasma Cosmology (particularly on the front of galaxy formation along Birkeland currents, without requiring the invention of "Dark Matter"). Bengt Hultqvist has published a number of interesting papers on the aurora and electrical processes in the magnetosphere / atmosphere (following, I think, from the researches of Alfvén / Birkeland). The mainstream researchers Bernard Vonnegut and ER Rathbun made a number of solid contributions to the general understanding of atmospheric and meteorological electrical phenomena (on account of their researches I'm moderately convinced that there may be a strong electrical / Lorentz force component to tornadoes [and *possibly* hurricanes]).

All sorts of good stuff out there, if one decides to go looking with an open mind and the right keywords for scholar.google.com or adsabs.harvard.edu (or to some lesser extend Google proper).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin