Logical Evidence of an Electric Universe

[JP Michael]

I have been thinking of developing a logical argument proving that the universe is electric, which I already posted (and got censored) elsewhere.

At the moment it is as follows:

1. 99.99999999% of the extant universe exists in the plasma state of matter.
2. The plasma state of matter conducts electricity better than copper or gold
Ergo: 99.99999999% of the extant universe conducts electricity better than copper or gold = Electric Universe.

I realised that, logically, just because plasma can conduct electricity, it does not mean it actually is doing so. That needs an additional proof. So I need to link the ability of plasma to conduct electricity with actuality, it generally (or better, always) does this.

3. The plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric current or electric fields. (This is another way of saying, "The plasma state of matter always conducts electricity.")

But this argument now seems circular: 99.99999999% of the universe is plasma which can conduct electricity, but plasmas cannot form unless there is electricity to start with. Further, I do not know if it is actually the case that plasmas can only form in the presence of electric current or electric fields but I suspect the laboratory evidence supports this proposition.

So, does anyone want to help formulating a concise logical argument as to how to link all of these in a way that isn't circular? Or perhaps the chicken-and-egg dilemma is unavoidable (like many other areas, actually)? Plasma only forms where there's electricity and electricity needs plasma to conduct in the universe (because the universe does not tend to exist with copper wires allowing conductivity - that's a strictly human endeavour).

The purpose is to set forth a series of logical propositions whose evidence must be refuted in order for the logical sequence to be falsified. And I don't see the likelihood of falsifying the evidence buttressing the three propositions: 1. Majority universe exists in the plasma state of matter (this is the weakest - the universe is hardly completely explored!); 2. Plasma state of matter is a better conductor of electricity than copper or gold; 3. Plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric currents/electric fields.

[Cargo]

The electric cart in front of the plasma horse. Or switch, reverse that.

Plasma is the State which agrees the most with the presence of the electric force. These are two different things.
The basis must be though, an agreement on States. And while each state can have different measures and rules, I think only one force works across all of them, and that is the electric force. It just so happens that the E force is most dominant in the Plasma State.

[JP Michael]

*snip*

Are you able to frame that in a propositional format?

[GaryN]

3. Plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric currents/electric fields.

What about light ionising matter?

[JHL]

Lovely premise, JP. This especially strikes one:

But this argument now seems circular: 99.99999999% of the universe is plasma which can conduct electricity, but plasmas cannot form unless there is electricity to start with.

Could you not trace that question back into the Big Bang too, asking where it developed this apparently circular mechanism?

Since fundamentally neither model can account for the phenomenon, I'm not sure the question needs an answer. Or: obviously the circular problem doesn't bother standard modelers in the least.

[JP Michael]

What about light ionising matter?

Under what conditions does "light" ionise matter? I haven't researched this at all.

When you say "light", do you mean simply the visible portion of the EM spectrum, or the whole spectrum of EMF radiation, or something else? The fact that "light" is electromagnetic is our first clue, anyway. Second, one would need to demonstrate that the conditions by which "light" may form plasmas are applicable in "the 99.99999999% plasma universe", rather than by specific application of human technologies in laboratory conditions (thinking lasers are somehow involved in this proposition). Third, does light maintain ionisation of a plasma without an electric current or electric field present?

[GaryN]

JP Michael:

Under what conditions does "light" ionise matter? I haven't researched this at all.

Photoionisation begins with the hydrogen atom, a single electron atom, and is the source of the Lyman Alpha UV spectral line. Multi-electron atoms and molecules can be ionised to various degrees depending on the light energy, going all the way up to gamma radiation. The Lyman Alpha line is at the start of what is referred to as the Vacuum UV wavelengths.

Third, does light maintain ionisation of a plasma without an electric current or electric field present?

Light can be the initiator of the electric and magnetic fields. I think of light, electricity and magnetism as being the Trinity, and I'll one day be continuing my old EM Universe from V2 NIAMI as the OEM, Opto-Elecro-Magnetic Universe. We don't really know what each of these things are, even though we understand their behaviours and effects well enough to do some pretty amazing things with them.
The idea of energy bundles is being looked at, that goes into string and super-string theory, some pretty heavy stuff, so for me I just go with the idea of Aether configurations, motions and relationships. There comes a point where I don't think we will ever or can ever understand the ultimate basic structure of the Universe from a purely scientific, physics standpoint, it gets into metaphysics, the Creators realm. When we get into the hard Gamma 'light' region then mater creation is possible through the pair production phenomena, the proton/anti-proton being produced at GeV energies.

Above certain energies the light can defy the inverse square law, the vacuum itself becomes a non-linear optical medium, and the light will self focus, maybe to infinite distances, so it would be possible for planets or lesser objects, which always have an atmosphere or exosphere containing hydrogen, to have ionised atmospheres even at very great distances from the source.

This article is one of the reasons I decided to proceed with my OEM universe thread:

The Sun Is Stranger Than Astrophysicists Imagined

It’s amazing that we were so spectacularly wrong about something we should understand really well: the sun,” said Brian Fields, a particle astrophysicist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

We just kept finding surprising things,” said Annika Peter of Ohio State University, a co-author of a recent white paper summarizing several years of findings about the solar gamma-ray signal. “It’s definitely the most surprising thing I’ve ever worked on.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/gamma-ra ... -20190501/

The Sun emits far more Gamma rays than previously believed. I won't mention Horace Winfield Webster here but it's looking to me as though he was on the right track after all. And of course the closer we get to the Sun then the more higher energy gamma rays we would likely find, as they have been attenuated less.
The closer you look into all this, the deeper the rabbit hole gets. I don't think we will ever see the bottom of it. I like Einsteins quote,

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

The physics and mathematics involved with attempting to understand the universe gets to be too much for my rational mind to comprehend, I'm hoping for an intuitive understanding one day.

[Cargo]

Are you able to frame that in a propositional format?

Mathematically or Logically? I hope logically I already did. I'm also agreeing with Gary's response greatly. Well done.

Plasma is the 1st state of matter, and is 99% electric.

[paladin17]

3. The plasma state of matter can only exist in the presence of electric current or electric fields. (This is another way of saying, "The plasma state of matter always conducts electricity.")

This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.
Generally, there is no "logical" way of "proving" the electric universe paradigm - exactly because it is a paradigm, i.e. simply a way of looking at things. E.g. there is no logical way of distinguishing between statements "gravitation governs the behavior of matter on large scales" and "electromagnetism governs the behavior of matter on large scales". Logically they are equivalent, because, strictly speaking, they do not depend on any logic in the first place, being set up purely aximatically (paradigmatically).
The only way to "prove" one's paradigm, therefore, is simply having better practical results.

[JP Michael]

This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.

Thanks Eugene. Hence my reticence to actually add this proposition.

As an aside, has anyone ever measured the electric field of thermal effects? I know fire is a good conductor, being ever so partially ionised. But would a bonfire on the beach conduct, say, telluric current from the sand into the atmosphere, and how would one test if it does so?

[Cargo]

Look at the lightning that comes with volcanoes. The magma is massively discharging like Godzilla. Who after all these years has finally been morphed into a plasma focus beam based on the planets electric field. It's almost better proof then magical Neutron Stars and BSH(Black Star Hole) Mergers.

A very old Electrician said to me when I was a little person once, when we figure out how to make cold without making heat, we'll have solved everything.

[spark]

If you modify plasma globe and fill plasma globe with hydrogen, helium, particles that can act as dust and various metal vapors (metal nano-particles), etc. while keeping the pressure low inside the plasma globe, you can produce fractal galaxies inside the plasma globe if you get the electromagnetic conditions right with Tesla Coils. Can be a very good lab experimental evidence for electric universe if one succeeds. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... f=11&t=195

[nick c]

Laboratory produced simulations of galaxies

Winston H Bostick

Galaxy formation

[jackokie]

JP Michael:

Anything that reinforces the electrical nature of the universe has merit, although as I am a "true believer" the evidence to me is overwhelming. In terms of proof, however, the statement "99.99999999% of the extant universe exists in the plasma state of matter" caught my attention: How do we know this? Where is the proof? Perhaps that is the place to start with your logical evidence.

A related question: Does "plasma" always require an electric current? Can a collection of charged particles remain stable absent an electric current?

[GaryN]

paladin17 wrote:

This is not true. Thermal ionization can also produce plasma - even a burning candle can.

Do flames contain plasma?
https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/05/28 ... in-plasma/