CMI’s response to the ‘electric universe’

We occasionally get queries about the ‘electric universe’, which is basically the idea that electrical fields/forces are much more significant than gravity and a better, over-arching explanation for the structure of the universe than Newton’s gravitation concepts. There is a whole ‘world’ of electric universe proponents, with YouTube videos, etc., purporting to explain all manner of things better than mainstream concepts of physics. We present a fairly typical submission, from a good friend of CMI, with our response from Don Batten that explains why we are not interested in going in this direction.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your interest and your support.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati responded to a comment on an article proposing the electric universe idea (Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?):

“From time to time, we have been asked about the electric universe theory. As I say to all the enquirers, CMI can’t adopt maverick theories in operational science otherwise we would be fighting on two fronts, as explained in my paper above [link above: about quantum mechanics and how well it works].

Mathis, a leading proponent of the electric universe theory, is certainly not sympathetic to creation, and has had interaction with creationists showing that he is not very well informed.”

Dr John Hartnett, physicist, also responded to a separate comment (Where materialism logically leads):

“The electric universe idea has been suggested to me many times. But the electrical forces in the galaxies must be nearly zero as all plasmas are neutral. There is no fear of stepping outside the ‘mainstream scientific machine’, because biblical creationist did that a long time ago. If you like the electric universe, write a paper and submit it to the Journal of Creation. Maybe all it has been lacking is someone to defend it in the creationist community. But we are few in number and we need many more to contribute.”

Note: “But the electrical forces in the galaxies must be nearly zero as all plasmas are neutral.” There are positive and negative electrically charged particles (positive ions, protons and negative electrons) but they cancel each other in a plasma. There are no positive and negative gravitons. This is the deciding factor in the claim that gravity is weak in comparison to electric fields, and therefore the latter must be much more significant. On a cosmological scale, all electric fields are neutralized (there are positive and negative charges in equal numbers) whereas there is no ‘anti-gravity’ to counter the gravitational attraction due to mass (for which the famous creationist physicist Isaac Newton was famous for elucidating).

The electric universe idea is not really a theory about origins but a claim about how the universe works. We see no good reason to depart from the established operational science of Newton’s gravity and Einstein’s extension of the creationist physicist Maxwell’s electromagnetism equations. Einstein explicitly said that his theories were a deduction of the equations of one of his scientific heroes, the creationist James Clerk Maxwell—on electromagnetism.

Electrical discharges are certainly important on a local level. Geologists have recognized the role of lightning in the formation of shocked quartz (once thought to be formed from meteorite impact). Lightning has also been recognized in the fracturing of boulders, thus speeding up the weathering process enormously (no need for ‘deep time’).

In my climate change article, I mention the research that recognizes the significant role of the solar wind in earth’s weather, via cloud formation and/or longevity.

So, I don’t think that there is any resistance to acknowledging the role of electrical forces, where it is appropriate. But as an overarching replacement for a well-established understanding of many aspects of the cosmological-scale physics of the universe, we don’t accept the need for such, or the apologetic value of it (as Dr Sarfati explained above). We believe that adopting this maverick position would make it even harder to get a hearing for the case for believing Genesis is history (and its corollary, the Gospel). Our Mission is: “To support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history”. Our mission is not to oppose and re-write the whole edifice of modern operational science! I can’t see how the electric universe ideas would be of any help in achieving this mission but would make it more difficult.

Kindest regards in Christ,

Don Batten