When terms such as the
Big Bang, black holes and spacetime become household names, and when dark
matter, antimatter, gravitational waves and string theory enter our every-day
language, it seems appropriate to ask how plausible and concrete those concepts
are. The apparent complexity inherent in them has been a major deterrent for
probing questions. Therefore, general compliance has grown, and so has the
edifice of modern physics, which has risen to dizzying heights based on
foundations built a hundred years ago. Fragility of the construction, which
likens it to a house of cards, seems one of its characteristics. It is not
impossible that a serious examination could terminally shake it. Such a
scrutiny could be brought about by overdue, fair and open public debate. Topics
of future discourse are not as inaccessible to the average person as they
appear. The use of large amounts of taxpayers’ funds for scientific research,
which the general public understands little about, is sufficient reason for
such a discussion.
Once upon a time in Bern
The
building of what we know today as modern physics was pre-empted more than a
century ago by the birth of a new branch of mathematics called “algebra of
physics”. At the end of the 19th century this discipline was further developed
into a highly abstract and self-contained four-dimensional geometry. The term
“self-contained” means that solutions produced by such a system only work
within it and their application outside should be treated with caution.
Minkowski’s
four-dimensional geometry became a godsend to a certain ambitious patent office
clerk in Bern, recently graduated mathematician Albert Einstein, who was on the
point of embarking on something big. He set out to change the face of science –
and in fact of the world – by mathematically demonstrating that everything is
relative and there are no absolute points of reference. In addition to the
complex tool of mathematics in his hands, young Einstein had at his disposal
previous works on the nature of light by James Maxwell, and on the relationship
between the speed of light and shortening of time and space by Hendrik Lorentz
and Henri Poincare.
Considering
the time in history, it could reasonably be expected that Einstein, as an
intellectual, shared the growing dislike for the political system of Europe,
which over the previous half a century had shown signs of crisis in the form of
social unrests, wars and revolutions. Rigidity and staleness of the old system
of power and the cultural structures, which later eventually collapsed in the
First World War, also permeated science of the day.
What
arguably also guided Einstein in work on his thesis, known today as the theory
of special relativity, was resentment towards scientific establishment of the
day, which rejected him earlier and sentenced to a relatively low professional
rank.
Ether is dead, long live
relativity, but...
The
epitome of rigid absolutism in science was the commonly accepted notion of
ether being the absolute frame of reference, in relation to which all motion in
the universe, including that of light, was to be observed. The first postulates
of the theory of special relativity, stating that there are no privileged
frames of reference, could then be seen as betraying Einstein’s statement
against the established order in science and beyond. The second postulate was
that the speed of light is always constant, even if emitted at near light-speed
velocities. This leads to the third main postulate of special relativity that
time and dimensions of objects will shrink as these objects travel, which would
be the most pronounced at near-light-speed or light-speed velocities.
Thus
the special theory of relativity was born. It demonstrated the absence of
absolute frames of reference and proposed that all dynamic processes are in
effect measured in relation to one another. Special relativity achieved its
purpose: it dislodged ether from its pedestal of the absolute frame of
reference. Later, it contributed to the
establishment of a new order in Europe after World War I.
It
is important to note that nobody has so far satisfactorily demonstrated what
really happens when bodies approach the speed of light, so the corner stone of
special relativity, the underlying hypothesis that time and dimensions shrink
in super-high speeds, is to this day no more than an unproven theoretical
postulate. This probably did not bother the creator of special relativity who,
in addition to overthrowing absolutism in science, introduced a revolutionary
concept of viewing reality as having multiple facets, which was the consequence
of his proposed multiplicity of reference frames.
Through
his special relativity, Einstein did not propose, by any means, that reality is
“in the eye of the beholder”. He
believed in material realty as a fixed entity independent of the observer. In fact, he later became one of the strongest
opponents of the idea of reality being dependent on a point of view, which was
championed by the supporters of the Copenhagen formulation of quantum theory,
including Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. This contradiction in Einstein’s
thinking, involved in arguing for the lack of independent frames of reference
and denying the conclusions flowing from it, was a sign of a larger problem, a
paradox indeed, which Einstein had to fix and which he resolved by proposing
his general theory of relativity.
One
could argue that Einstein intuitively “sensed” relativity involved in reality,
but he looked for it in the wrong places.
Had he linked it, for instance, with the wave-particle duality, which
allows to view matter as consisting of waves or particles (as demonstrated
earlier by himself through the photoelectric effect), rather than by contradicting
Galileo with the help of a speculative
shrinkage of time and dimensions, a much larger leap of progress may have been
achieved in science.
You have a right to
understand relativity
The
special theory of relativity has worked well in the abstract domain of
four-dimensional geometry, but has helped little to understand mechanisms of
the real world outside of this insular discipline. Most of us are intuitively
aware of this fact; others should have been convinced by the incompleteness
theorem proposed by Gödel in 1931. The theorem demonstrated that mathematics,
as a self-contained system of axioms, cannot be used to conclusively prove
anything outside itself, because it is always possible to devise a different,
equally self-contained and limited mathematical model, to prove otherwise.
In
other words, after the incompleteness theorem one no longer has to believe that
if something can be demonstrated mathematically, it necessarily has to be true
in the real world. One no longer has to humbly accept that if one cannot follow
mathematics, he or she is unable to grasp processes of nature as explained by
science. People have a right to understand science, even at its most complex. If scientists are unable to explain it through
causal reasoning and resort to abstract mathematical models instead, it is them
who have a problem – not the general public.
However,
theoretical physicists, supported by mathematicians, managed to overcome the
obstacle of the incompleteness theorem by resting mathematics on an ideologically
safe foundation of platonism, which happens to be a major philosophical support
of Christianity. The official launch of
platonism in its new scientific role took place three years after Gödel’s
incompleteness theorem, in which, ironically, the author of the theorem played
a major role.
Theoretical
physicists now believe that mathematics is part of Plato’s ideal world of
immutable forms of which nature, with its laws, is only an imperfect
reflection. Consequently, scientific
methods founded on Plato’s mystical reasoning have replaced methods relying on
causal logic and conformity with reality through empirical observations.
Quantum friends
Special
relativity was published in a German science magazine, Annalen Der Physik, in 1905. An associate editor of the magazine,
Max Planck, a few years earlier himself had completed groundbreaking scientific
work, which resulted in his famous law of radiation, relating electromagnetic
waves to energy. Einstein’s article on special relativity appeared as a tryptic
alongside his two other papers, one of which – on the photoelectric effect –
supported Planck’s law of radiation.
It
is reasonable, therefore, to suspect that Planck’s willingness to publish the
tryptic was related to his enthusiasm about the paper on the photoelectric
effect, and that he accepted the other papers, on special relativity and
Brownian motion, as part of the deal. In his eagerness to see published
evidence of his law of radiation, Planck even overlooked some technical
problems with the relativity article such as the lack of proper referencing and
acknowledgements.
Except
for narrow scientific circles, scant attention was paid to special relativity
and its flaws after the publication, because it was new, esoteric and, at that
stage, had no impact on the world affairs. It was in fact the author himself,
who discovered a serious problem with his work a few years later. However,
instead of correcting it and approaching the concept of relativity from a
different angle such as the wave-particle duality, which involved a related “relativity”
notion and was well proven, Einstein decided to do the opposite and modify
reality to fit his original postulates.
Twin Newtons and
unfolded stars
Einstein
observed that his theory, which claimed the absence of frames of reference, so
that everything was relative, did not work with the traditional approach to
gravity. In other words, if his theory of relative motion was to be true,
hypothetical twin Newtons on opposite sides of the globe would not be able to
observe the same results of their simultaneous apple experiments. While one
Newton would see his apple getting closer to the Earth (or the Earth getting
closer to the apple, which was irrelevant to special relativity) the other
would see the opposite.
This
of course contradicted what happened in reality, and Einstein found himself in
a big conundrum. He clearly saw that his theory was not working, and he set out
to fix the problem without actually retracting his previous statements. He realised
that mathematical tools were either available or could be developed to get out
of the twin-Newtons problem by “unfolding” the Earth sphere. If one unfolded
and flattened the Earth, all apples that could ever fall down would be on the
same side, simply above the flat surface.
This
conceptual procedure ensured agreement not only with his special relativity but
also with Newton’s law of gravity, and it became the conceptual core of his
general theory of relativity published in 1916. A highly complicated mathematical system
called “field equations”, developed by Bernhard Riemann, was used to
demonstrate general relativity. This greatly acclaimed demonstration has been
more than acceptable to Einstein’s peers and followers ever since. However, if the theory explains anything that
is valid beyond the mystic world of Plato, it should be possible to demonstrate
it through causal reasoning.
According
to what we know about our world through such reasoning, physical folding and
unfolding of planets and stars is not possible. It can only be done as part of
a theoretical model, but the outcomes of such modelling, as consistent with
Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, should not be used to conclusively prove or disprove
anything in the real world outside of the model. However, thanks to the
philosophical support of platonism and with little regard for reason and causality,
general relativity ended up being regarded as providing conclusive explanation
of the mechanics of the universe.
As
a result, a speculative theory, incorporating an abstract concept of flattening
of celestial bodies, is used today to explain real processes around us, despite
sound scientific arguments and common sense prompting not to do so. In addition
to gravity being viewed in terms of attraction between elements of the universe
(Newton’s version), it is also presented as a factor that tells space how to
curve around matter and dictates how matter moves through space (Einstein’s
version). The theory implies that in some elementary state of the universe all
lines and spheres are flat and everything moves in a linear fashion, and that
it is gravity that curves it all into celestial spheres and round orbits.
The
moderate hubbub and hushed discussions about Einstein’s theories around science
labs and lecture theatres would not have spilled into the public domain and
ensured the global success for the relativities, had it not been for a
constellation of favourable circumstances.
Eddington to the rescue
World
War I and the collapse of the old political and ideological framework left
mankind in a state of uncertainly and confusion. The world desperately needed
new ideas to build its future on and replace the old paradigms. Just at this
critical moment, precisely in November 1919, the success of the general
relativity theory was broadcast through the front pages of the main media
around the globe, including the London Times and the New York Times.
The
announcement stated that the British Royal and Astronomical Societies at the
joint sitting accepted that evidence thus far gathered was decisive in
verifying Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Previously, similar news
related to science would probably have covered a small column of one of the
inside pages; the New York Times had never mentioned about Einstein till then
despite his growing acclaim since 1905.
It
is truly remarkable how such a piece of news, relevant only to relatively
narrow scientific circles, was prominently presented by the major global media.
The reasons for that phenomenon are not clear, and fathoming them would probably
stir many debates and disputes. What is undisputable, however, is that Einstein
had a great admirer and supporter in a wealthy British scientist,
philanthropist and pacifist, Lord Eddington. This visionary man realised that
elevating a German scientist to the genius status would, in addition to the
benefit of giving a new “relativity” religion to the masses, make an enormous
step in healing the wounds on the old continent after the War.
Lord
Eddington was in fact the one who funded expeditions to distant, remote corners
of the earth to observe solar eclipses a few months earlier. The expeditions
provided sufficient, final evidence to the British Royal and Astronomical societies
to make their subsequent announcement. It is not outside the realms of
possibility that Lord Eddington’s influence did not stop at his support in
gathering evidence, and that he may have played a role in orchestrating the big
splash around the globe about the success of general relativity, which
overnight elevated Einstein to the celebrity and genius status.
The wrong Nobel
The
success and sustained pressure of the supporters eventually lead to Einstein
receiving a Nobel prize in 1921. However, the Swedish Academy of Science
specifically rewarded Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect – not
for his relativities – which the Nobel committee considered not conclusively
proven. The fact that Einstein was not recognised for his relativities has
escaped public attention, and his Nobel has confirmed the general and special
relativity theories as the foundations of human understanding of how the
universe works.
Einstein’s
position of an oracle and ultimate authority on science and beyond, whose works
would become the benchmark for future development in physics, was established.
From then on it was more profitable for scientists to agree with him rather
than contradict or dispute his statements. The legacy of this popular success
continues. For example, if physicists
these days wish to secure funds for their research and progress their careers,
they are well advised to make sure the outcomes of their work conform to
Einstein’s relativities or the projects are aligned with corroborating the
theories.
Hubble scatters galaxies
The
triumph was so overwhelming that Einstein’s critics forgave him his
self-acknowledged mistake of considering the universe static and joined his
camp. Instead of continuing to argue against general relativity on the grounds
of this error, they accepted it after another set of mathematical constructs
was developed to demonstrate that the theory actually worked for a dynamic
universe too.
Soon
after this was accomplished, in 1929, an American astronomer, Edwin Hubble,
supplied evidence which won him a Nobel price, demonstrating that the universe
was indeed dynamic and actually expanding.
He
based his discovery on the hypothesis that the shift towards red in the light
spectra of observed galaxies could be interpreted as an indication that those
galaxies were running away from one another. Other interpretations of the “red
shift” phenomenon, such as those that could be related to chemical, nuclear,
electromagnetic or other processes occurring within galaxies, were apparently
regarded as far less plausible for serious consideration.
Uncertainty strikes
In
the dazzling light of Einstein’s fame both common sense and alternative
approaches, inconsistent with his relativities, started being ignored. Comparatively
little excitement, for example, created the formulation of the uncertainty
principle by Heisenberg in 1926, which challenged Einstein’s deterministic
relativity model and which later became the corner stone in the development of
quantum theory.
The
uncertainty principle, in essence, was a logical step after the wave-particle
duality discovered by de Broglie and confirmed through the photoelectric effect
by Einstein. It says that since particles have a dual nature – observable
(material/particle) and unobservable (non-material/wave) – then we can never be
completely certain about their characteristics. This can mean as little as that
at least one particle characteristic will escape our accurate measurement, if
only by virtue of being affected by the very act of measurement.
It
can, however, also mean something more profound, namely that an observed
particle is only a material manifestation of its many possibilities of
existences that are contained in the potentiality of the wave manifestation.
The uncertainty principle could mean that what we observe, in general, is what
our mind, by the act of observation, has brought into existence out of all
other possible forms.
Three tenors of physics
Conclusions
of the uncertainly principle were so challenging that the world, bewitched by
the mathematical elegance of the relativities, was practically unaware of it
and, in fact, is little aware of it even now. Einstein gave the uncertainty
principle and quantum theory a cold shoulder, as immortalised by one of his
famous statements that “God did not play dice”.
In
his book on Einstein, “Einstein Lived Here” (Oxford Press, 1994), his friend,
Abraham Pais, highlights that both serendipitous co-founders of quantum theory,
Planck and Einstein, failed to comprehend the ramifications of their own
discoveries, and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the end of classical
physics.
The
third of the “great tenors” of 20th century physics, Niels Bohr, was the only
one who gracefully bowed to the inevitable and embraced the new paradigm in
thinking. Bohr’s subsequent complementarity principle followed on the
uncertainly principle, and proposed that the dual character of particles needed
to be viewed as complementary, and that both forms – material and wavelike –
were necessary for the full understanding of observed phenomena, and that the
manifestation of either of the two forms depended on the observer. This meant that the observer had to be
considered for the completeness of an observation, which constituted an
important message of Bohr’s principle implying that reality is manipulated by
the mind.
Bohr’s
complementarity principle contradicted the current classical approach of seeing
material reality as completely independent from the observers. Admittedly,
Bohr’s ideas have not caught on, if only because we are as yet unable,
technologically and culturally, to reconcile both manifestations of reality.
Had there been, however, less reluctance towards quantum theory, perhaps we
would have made more progress towards understanding the complementarity
principle and putting it into practice. Nevertheless, ideas encapsulated in
Bohr’s principle, which is more profound and general than Heisenberg’s
uncertainly principle, have been described as the best exegesis of quantum
theory available to date.
Now, who split the atom?
The
success of the atom bomb at the end of World War II became an important
confirmation of relativities. The famous formula E=mc2, which is
attributed to Einstein and which today is identified as the blueprint for the
nuclear reaction, had really been formulated by Henri Poincare to illustrate
how electromagnetic waves relate to energy. Einstein later adopted it to show
how matter related to energy, and this is the form in which the formula for
unleashing the atom’s energy was passed on to posterity.
Since
interpreting matter as energy is the same as equalling electromagnetic waves to
energy – as shown by Planck, Poincare and Einstein – Oppenheimer’s team of
nuclear scientists working on the atom bomb could have used Planck’s law of
radiation. This law, which expressed the
same idea, was better developed and supported by experiments than the
Poincare-Einstein formula. However, the E=mc2 equation was used
instead, which arguably had more to do with Einstein’s global fame rather than
with his science.
Einstein’s
real contribution to the development of the atom bomb consisted of using his
authority to lobby the American government to engage in research on nuclear
reaction and beat the Germans at it. In fact, after Hiroshima he denied his
involvement in the work on the bomb. Inadvertently, though, the nuclear success
became another proof that his relativities worked.
The Little Red Riding
Hood
The
formation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, commonly known as
CERN, in 1954, became the next major stage in steadying the construction of
modern physics. Situated on the border between France and Switzerland, CERN is
today the world's largest particle physics laboratory. Large sums of money from
the participating countries fund the costly experiments involving particle
accelerators and other tools of high-energy physics.
A
major goal of the facility has been to demonstrate the existence of particles
and sub-particles that have theoretically been anticipated by the relativity
and subsequent theories such as Big Bang, black holes, supergravity, p-branes
and others. CERN is the very place where sub-atomic particles such as those of
antimatter and dark matter have already been, or eventually will be, shown to
exist. Nobody has, however, seen any of the tiny specs of matter that are
claimed to have been detected. CERN researchers are only likely to observe
phenomena that they first have to theoretically predetermine to be evidence for
the existence of the particles they attempt to find.
CERN
discoveries, therefore, are not dissimilar to proving the existence of the
Little Red Riding Hood through finding a real wolf in the forest. Certainly,
more than just sighting of a wolf would be required from anyone claiming to
have found evidence for the much cherished fairy-tale creature. By analogy, no
more is demanded from theoretical physicists.
Cooking in a background
microwave
An
inconspicuous study on cosmic microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias
and Robert Wilson in the 1970s became the next landmark development in
consolidating modern physics. What had to be shown ever since Hubble’s
discovery – namely that the universe started in an explosion – was finally
proven by the Penzias and Wilson duet, and the Big Bang theory was launched.
They concluded that radio-wave-length background noise they had detected by
their instruments could only be reasonably attributed to the microwave
background radiation, regarded as residuum of the most ancient event in the
history of the universe – the Big Bang.
The
question why low-frequency radio waves – one of the many kinds of electromagnetic
waves saturating the universe – could only be attributed to the Big Bang, and
not to any other sources of radiation, remains a puzzle to the author of this
text, and probably to many others. We are surrounded by infinite sources of
radiation, including in our own biosphere, so it is conceivable that
low-frequency waves would be among the range of electromagnetic waves emitted
in the universe.
The
Penzias and Wilson discovery had been, however, too eagerly awaited to confirm
the universal expansion – and further strengthen the reign of Einstein’s
relativities – to let any alternative hypotheses overshadow this achievement.
Hawk swoops onto black
holes
Stephen
Hawking devoted a significant part of his career to the concept of black holes,
which is part and parcel of the established order in theoretical physics. His
black hole theory is built on top of the Big Bang by reverse analogy, whereby
if the big explosion is possible, so must be the implosion as well – which involved reversing the sign from “+” to “–“ in the related mathematical theorem. In addition to the Big Bang, his black hole
hypothesis was also influenced by the work of an Indian prodigy Subrahmanyan
Chandrasekhar (Chandra), who had mathematically predicted the explosive demise
of large stars.
Chandra’s
work helped Hawking to develop his own theoretical model showing that
“not-so-large” stars would not necessarily explode with age. He showed that
they would do the opposite to the Big Bang process and collapse under the
influence of gravity to a small size. In extreme cases they would actually shrink
to a point (singularity) defined as a black hole.
Had
Hawking applied his brilliant mind to topics less coherent with relativity, the
world would probably not have had the pleasure of being enlightened by his
unique combination of acute intelligence and dedication to finding the ultimate
truth about the universe through mathematical theory. Careful readers of his
popular science books may have observed, however, a tendency of increasing
candidness about conundrums of modern physics. One would hope for this positive
trend to continue to its natural conclusion of seeing that mathematical theory
alone is not the answer to discover the deepest truths of the universe and
reality.
The puzzle of gravity
Among
the baffling notions proposed by physicists, the black hole theory is just a
logical consequence of its predecessors such as the Big Bang and general
relativity, so no brows were raised when it emerged. The insightful and persistent
observer may have, however, noticed a peculiar duality involved in the black
hole theory, which theoretical physicists apparently have not been seriously
taken to task over yet.
On
the one hand theoretical physicists maintain that gravity is large enough to
start spontaneous contractions of old stars into black holes and hold the solar
systems and galaxies together. In fact, it is so significant a force that it is
able to keep everything firmly on the surface of our planet as everyone can see
without elaborate scientific experiments. But then, we are told by the same
scientists that gravity is actually very small, infinitely smaller than the
other two main universal forces – atomic and electromagnetic – and that this is
why we, for example, do not see everyday objects tangibly attracting one
another.
Coincidentally,
the assertion about gravity being very small would also be convenient to
explain why, to all appearances, nobody has succeeded in building a replica
solar system in a zero-gravity environment, which would spontaneously revolve
and stay as a whole organic system. Such modelling should be possible, if we
are to believe that gravity is naturally created by mass, as Newton has taught
us.
The
very idea of gravity had waited a long time to be seriously looked into since Newton.
This somewhat mystic topic had until the 20th century been defined
by Newton as an inborn characteristic of all material objects, enabling them to
attract one another. Then, without directly contradicting Newton, Einstein
interpreted gravity as a universal force that curves straight lines and flat
plains into circles and spheres.
Another
couple of American scientists, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor, for several
years observed what they interpreted as a pair of neutron stars rapidly
rotating around a common centre of mass. They set themselves the objective to
provide evidence of the existence of gravitational waves, as anticipated by
general relativity. Their dedicated, several-year research was indeed rewarded
by a success and Nobel prize in 1993.
However,
contrary to what is commonly believed, their research did not prove the
existence of gravitational waves, but only offered a mathematical solution to a
possibility that the apparent evolution of the observed stars’ orbits may be
attributed to the emission of gravitational waves. This
is not the same as providing confirmation of the existence of gravitational
waves – which does not stop scientists from presenting it this way to
uninitiated audiences.
Hulse and Taylor’s discovery is now capitalised on by physicists all over the world to lobby for grants to detect gravitational waves. This means that large sums of funds are asked of government funding bodies to detect something that has not yet been convincingly shown to exist or properly debated with those we have to pay for it. Multimillion dollar gravitational wave observatories have already been built around the world in the USA, Europe and Japan, and one is currently planned in Australia.
Hulse and Taylor’s discovery is now capitalised on by physicists all over the world to lobby for grants to detect gravitational waves. This means that large sums of funds are asked of government funding bodies to detect something that has not yet been convincingly shown to exist or properly debated with those we have to pay for it. Multimillion dollar gravitational wave observatories have already been built around the world in the USA, Europe and Japan, and one is currently planned in Australia.
Getting more and more
funny
Then
came the chain of contemporary hypotheses trying to conceptualise the workings
of the universe through grand, synthetic theories, such as the supergravity,
supersymetry, string and p-branes theories. Their underlying commonality is
that they build on to the old thinking of Newton, metamorphosed through
Einstein’s relativities, and that each one is based on a highly speculative,
hypothetical model.
Whenever
convenient, they use quantum theory for support when classical reasoning fails.
As a result, they propose concepts so bizarre that it makes them comparable
with fairy tales where, as we know, anything goes. Those who are unconvinced
about this statement are invited to study, for example, the pages from 49 to 55
of Hawking’s “Universe in a Nutshell” (Bantam Press, 2001).
Supergravity,
for instance, predicts, without backing in any causally verifiable evidence,
the existence of a twin superparticle to every particle observed in the real
world. The supersymetry and p-branes theories, in order to work, need multiple
dimensions which they conveniently avail themselves of from ground state
fluctuations of the quantum theory. The string theory in turn asks to consider
particles as ripples on one-dimensional imaginary strings, analogical to
vibrations on violin strings.
Hardly
any clarifying questions from outside the world of theoretical physics are
asked, because the lay audiences cannot even begin to understand what goes on
and formulate even basic queries. In confusion, the mind merely forms tentative
queries, including one about the propriety of convenience marriage between
classical physics and quantum theory, since those two appear exclusive. Perhaps
it is OK, but who knows?
Electrons must fuel up
too
Modern
theories explaining how the universe works also require cancelling out
infinities and factors that, generally speaking, are unmanageable in
calculations. These factors include ground state fluctuations, also known as
“zero-point fluctuations” or “vacuum fluctuations”, which is an accepted
implication of Heisenberg’s uncertainly principle, a corner stone of quantum
mechanics, experimentally demonstrated by the Casimir effect.
Cancelling
out ground state fluctuations means discounting as non-existent the energy that
could be responsible for propelling the electrons to move around their orbits
in atoms, and which, added together, amounts to a lot of energy. After the
cancelling of it as an unmanageable factor, zero-point (vacuum) energy is not
openly discussed any more. While it may be acceptable to temporarily ignore
vacuum energy in order to examine other aspects of the dynamics of particles – failing
to adequately acknowledge it is inconsistent with the ethos of science as a
pursuit of the truth.
The
treatment of vacuum energy by theoretical physicists could be compared to
studying the car while completely disregarding (cancelling out) the aspect of
energy that is needed to actually make it move.
Quantum conundrums
The
shrug of shoulders and dismissing look one gets from theoretical physicists,
when asked about zero-point energy, indicates how far physics is from being a
solid, dependable science that leaves no questions unanswered. The very founder of quantum physics that
could potentially address these questions, Albert Einstein, hated his own
creation. His resistance has prevailed
as a reluctant and opportunistic treatment of quantum theory to this day.
For
those who still have no doubts about the solidity of modern physics, here are a
few evocative examples. If Einstein’s relativity predictions are correct, how
is one to explain the missing 70% or more mass in the universe? It turns out
that most galaxies weigh far less than predicted by general relativity and
Newton’s laws of classical physics. They
revolve much faster than they should considering their estimated mass, and
should be much heavier to be consistent with the velocity of their
rotation. In other words, these galaxies
should be superheavy (which they are not) to spin as fast as they are.
In
order to account for this huge gap of mass in the universe, physicists have proposed
the concept of “dark matter”, which allegedly is out there, probably around the
outskirts of the galaxies, and which is yet to be detected. If there is anyone
satisfied with dark matter explaining the missing majority of the mass in the
universe those are most likely to be theoretical physicists. Others, if
properly informed and consulted, would prefer to rely on the alternative, which
is having another look at Newton’s laws and general relativity which impose the
current relationship between the rotational velocity of an object and its mass.
Another
“dark” concept that also belongs to the realm of speculation has recently been
invented by theoretical physicists (first proposed in 2005) to account for the
implication of Hubble’s 1929 discovery that the galaxies fly away from each
other with ever increasing speed. To
avoid contradicting the law of conservation of energy (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
the concept of “dark energy” has been proposed. “Dark energy”, whose origin and
parameters continue to be highly speculative, is said to cause the acceleration
of the galaxies which otherwise should actually be slowing down as consistent
with the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.
Reconsidering Hubble’s discovery, which is the other alternative of
dealing with this contradiction, has so far not been seriously considered.
Another
example of flaws in the current scientific method, built on Einstein’s relativities,
may be presented in the form that the genius himself enjoyed – as a virtual
mind experiment. We are indebted to
Schrödinger for wave mechanics and the wave equation, which enable the
prediction of particle behaviour. In other words, through wave mechanics we are
in control, if only theoretically, of our material reality.
Now,
let us say we stimulate an atom to release a particle or a parcel of energy
(photon). Using the Schrödinger equation we can predict when the release will
happen; we can predict the mass, energy and some other characteristics of the
particle, or photon, to be released. We will not, however, be able to predict
from which side of the atom the particle or photon will be released and which
way it will go. The deterministic
relativity model that is supposed to predict it fails to do so, thus exposing a
serious problem of physics built on general relativity.
Problems
are also encountered with accounting for the first moments after the Big Bang,
which continue to avoid conforming to general relativity. The explanation
appears lost in the foggy area between the notion that the explosion occurred
from one point and the idea of a simultaneous universal inferno. If the brightest minds are perplexed, a lay
person should not feel ashamed to ask: “If the Big Bang happened from one
point, then was that point to the east, west, south or north of me?”, or: “If
the universe has expanded ever since, then which galaxies are hurtling behind
us and which are in front?”
Also,
the issue of radiation of black holes, which their creator Stephen Hawking has
been forced to accept, remains a point of contention by not conforming to
classical understanding. In order to address this and other inconsistencies, we
are likely to see more bizarre propositions utilising quantum theory as a “walking
stick” in propping the classical theory, instead of retracing steps to revisit
the Big Bang, Einstein’s relativities and Newton’s old physics.
House of cards continues
to grow
If
reading this text has left the reader with a half-ironic, half-cynical smile
about the author being yet another crazy lunatic who wants to steal a laurel
leaf from Einstein’s wreath – perhaps this is not the most important problem here.
Our ignorance and taxes have already been used and will be used in the future to
detect something that, contrary to assurances, has not been conclusively shown
to exist and belongs in the domain of fantasy.
The
apparent complexity has kept the general public from entering the debate about
serious matters of science, whose outcomes affect us all. The topics of the
overdue debate are, however, not as inaccessible to us as they appear. The
average person is able to grasp complex problems if articulately explained
within the confines of causality. Mathematics, which has been used to support,
present and explain physics, does not prove anything conclusively. Neither do
the self-contained mathematical systems, supported by Plato’s mystic ideas,
explain anything in the real world. It
is only a formal and insular language of science.
All
knowledge of theoretical physics accumulated over the last hundred years has
added tier upon tier to build a hypothetical, fragile edifice. It does not
offer satisfactory explanations of processes in the real world, and yet it
claims to have done so.
We
are still in the old, classical era of physics, although the advent of a new
paradigm was foreshadowed a century ago. As long as alternatives to the
mathematical theories are not explored and considered, the new paradigm has not
arrived. We may not be quite ready for it, but it does not mean we should pretend
that the old ways are correct and only need to be conclusively confirmed.
Perhaps
the best that can be done for the time being is honestly acknowledge concepts
such as the complementarity principle and start engaging with its consequences.
© Robert Panasiewicz
Reference
note
The content of the article
has been inspired and supported, in the spirit of fair use and fair dealing, by
information commonly available in the public domain. The main sources include
the publications listed below. The text
was revised in 2013.
Stephen
Hawking, The Universe in a Nutshell,
Bantam Press, London, 2001
Stephen
Hawking, The Brief History of Time,
Bantam Press, London, 1988
Robert
Matthews, Unravelling of the Mind of God,
Virgin Books, London, 1992
Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University
Press, New York, 1994