Chapter VII – Other Theories

The dissemination of scientific studies is a difficult problem, as is the creation and control of this information. We take up phenomena that we think are debatable. Permanent evolutions are to be followed in the articles of the Blog, published after the chapters of the essay.

VII – Other Theories
7.1 – Knowledge and its diffusion,
7.2 – The History of science,
7,3 – Big bang, 7.4 – Quantum Mechanics, 7.5 – Antimatter,
7.6 – Mathematics and Information Technology

7,1 – Knowledge and its diffusion

It is always difficult to find the origin of ideas and theories in physics and their exact terms that would allow us to understand them well.

Facts are explained by scientists, then some phrases that seem important, are repeated by all popularisers and journalists. They take all or or part of a theory – with the very frequent risk of changing its meaning – spectacular or easy to understand formulas even if they are not exact. This is the case of Einstein and his theory of relativity, of antimatter theory appearing with Paul Dirac, light and frequencies of particles, electric and magnetic fields and the last, the Higgs field with its boson.

Popularisers, scientists or journalists write for their readers and their own reputation and to the truth that they know or wish to spread. Some pictures with words or drawings are classics, such as cake and grapes to show some expansion of space, or the light which cannot escape from a black hole despite his good will… certainly.

The deformations of popularisers and journalists become more important than scientific truths that are hidden and disappear. Scholars and other curious persons then build on what seems true because it is known by everybody and new directions, often false, make the whole incomprehensible.

Many scholars and not the least ones, then direct their research to philosophy, a discipline in which what matters is to ask questions, not to find answers, because everyone has his own, indisputably.

No new Physics or new idea can appear because everything is blocked by a complicated system of dissemination of scientific information which was gradually transformed into an economic system that influences all research. This concerns its organisation and financing, economic and political environment and the lives and careers of scientists.

Scientists aspire to free diffusion of information of research in general, and of its results. Currently, this is not the case, because the agencies that sort, manage and file in archives are too closely related to business-in charge of spreading this knowledge.

Nothing is accepted in archive before control by « peers » secretly chosen by these organisations. Then, additional sorting is done by the « media » that disseminate and publish such information, according to their ideas about topics and taking into account not researchers or even the public, but the need for sensational news and their economic and financial interests.

In early 2016, it appeared, with the LHC of CERN, rumours of a possible major discovery. Two hundred researchers wrote their observations or conclusions. The usual publisher could distribute only four of them. It was he who chose them. This choice was based on criteria defined for him by strangers.

Thus scientific research is oriented.

To try to mitigate all or part of the disadvantages of this system, research or educational organisations create their own open archive system under their control, available to certain categories of researchers and technicians chosen by well-established standards that give the scientific orientation of the current moment inside these organisms. Each implicitly sets its scientific criteria, and knowledge is dispersed in countless places, independent from each other or from centralising agencies, to which technicians and scientists that are out of their norms cannot participate.

This results in an impoverishment of all scientific research.

Rules and barriers are necessary, but they cannot be fixed by private or state companies that broadcast or otherwise their information and medals according to their reputation or according to their personal criteria that are not necessarily scientific.

It is a difficult and very vast global problem, and all scientists are aware of it, but nobody feels empowered to resolve it or has the necessary capacity have this problem studied.

An archive organisation that would allow everyone to easily find the latest research on specific topics in the various sciences does not appear to exist. This entity could list all available free archives including scientific results, according to internationally established criteria.

Only a United Nations agency could create an institution of this kind. This might be asked of UNESCO, already in charge of Science and Education.
7,2 – The History of Science

Studies by ancient philosophers and physicists have to be put back in the context of their time and we have to accept to review their results based on what we have learned since.

The history of scientific discoveries is very important. It must be written by historians, neutral, that is to say, not militants supporting any scientific or political positions.

The use of dictionaries, encyclopaedias and scientific archives has evolved markedly in recent years.

Encyclopaedias disappear or become unusable directly: classical encyclopaedias become obsolete because the dates of the articles are never mentioned, and no reference exists that would point towards up to date theories with the latest research recognised by a leading authority which would be a guarantee in its field, if such an authority exists.

Wikipedia has limitations because all information is regularly « updated » by unknown scientists who bring their latest findings, marked and limited by their ideas that become The Truth.

There are experts who could write reliable articles for Wikipedia.

In the years 2,000, there was talk of the Hubble constant, the value of which varied greatly, and had then been abandoned. That was only 10 years ago…

Now it is said that Hubble discovered the expansion of the Universe that was not mentioned before.

In his time Newton’s ideas about gravitational attraction, were not accepted and have been fished back and used, two centuries later, by Einstein with the theory of relativity that has never been fully proven, despite cosmologists statements to the contrary.

Moreover, this theory uses the speed of light, which is not constant, and no one has ever explained seriously either light, or its speed, or the creation from nothing of photons and other virtual particles.

The definition of antimatter indicates that it cannot exist and is used in some experiments, in particular in colliders. Some « particles » are made to rotate into them, forgetting that no element can move in any way other than in a straight line, even with the help of magnetism that has never been explained either.

Physics becomes the philosophy of nature, as in its infancy, 2,500 years ago, when everything had to be learned and known.

There is always as much to invent, discover and learn.

7,3 – Big Bang

In 2005, the age of the Universe was 12 billion years. Astronomers have continued to observe the Universe with constantly improving devices and they found older galaxies. So, the age of the Universe was put back, first by a billion years and then another billion.

Then, it was blocked at 13.8 billion years and astronomers do not dare suggest the discovery of older galaxies anymore.

Nowadays, in 2016, with the significant improvement of observation equipment, astronomers observe other galaxies that were fully mature a few million years after the birth of the Universe. One wonders. When would they have been created then?

How can we observe variations in the cosmic microwave background, 300 million years after the big bang when the galaxies of the same era are barely visible with the current sophisticated equipment?

In March 2013, some astrophysicists declared to have observed gravitational wave vibrations in the « cosmic background space » during the first second of the Universe, thereby confirming, they say, the validity of the Big Bang. It is amazing that an observation piece of equipment has « seen » the vibrations of what was space, through waves, due to disturbances that we have not been able to observe on Earth despite many attempts during the last twenty years.

So, somebody decided that galaxies were being made faster in the « beginning » of the Universe, without explaining for what reason this happened… Probably because everything was there and it was enough to make them grow, a theory that Gamow developed 20 years after the presentation of a theory of a primordial atom by Georges Lemaitre. It was a large atom of which nobody showed the origin or the very reason for its existence in who knows what, probably a chaos, exceedingly full of everything… Then Lemaître’s atom was reduced to a point without specific dimension containing no one knows precisely what.

Gamow described the beginnings of the Universe of the Big Bang, based on what he knew of the physics of his time. This is quite normal and understandable, but how can he explain the transformation of matter and antimatter, the creation of photons for a light that no one has ever explained and so accurate a timing of all events in such a short time…

Since then, astronomers have observed that new stars are created with the remains of dead ones. That seems natural because in the nebulae, where new stars are created, some heavy nuclei of atoms that have been created in a very high thermic agitation are present. We might also deduce from the above that dark matter could be the matter of dead stars, which transforms gradually in order to be used in the nebulae to make new stars.

Many physicists do not believe any more in the Big Bang theory, a doctrine that seems official, or at least so strong that nobody dares to offer an alternative theory.

Many Nobel Price winners have tried to do so, but have not been followed.

At the beginning of 2015, some scientists, after mathematical studies, dared to question the validity of the Big Bang, saying that the Universe always existed and will last forever, and others, with different developments and arguments indicate that the expansion of space could not exist.

Further studies are in progress.

Results are expected by many scientists.
7,4 – Quantum Mechanics

Quantum mechanics is a speculation that developed when mathematicians and physicists, at the beginning of the 20th century, tried to observe, with the equipment they had, objects of nanometric dimensions. As they could not see them, they replaced them with mathematical factors. As they could not see the results either they declared, with the school of Copenhagen, that they had no importance if the calculations were made.

Following some observations, a physics theory was materialised in the Standard Model of particles of cosmology. This doctrine describes the forces and particles, including the Higgs boson. It is difficult to understand how this theory explains anything about the matter of our Earth and all the other elements of the Universe.

According to their own rules, some physicists tried to analyse everything including the wave-particle duality, a theory confirmed by de Broglie, that has never satisfactorily explained the reality of either waves, or other elements to which a frequency of a no explained event was attached. We have seen these issues in Chapter IV.

Schrödinger indicated the atom as the upper limit for the application of quantum mechanics. It is surprising that this area corresponds to a very human development of scientific knowledge or of the quality of the observation equipment, without any meaning for the Universe. Nothing explains why, at this undefined stage of matter, there would exist a break or a change in the normal functioning of particles, forces and materials.

Below this vague boundary, a different theoretical framework for physics seems to apply, based on electron clouds, wave functions, Planck dimensions, standard model particles and the intricacies of certain particles without indicating limits that, without them, could lead to a general incomprehensible and absurd entanglement.

Apparently, quantum mechanics would only affect this part of physics.

Has any physicist, quantum physicist or otherwise, tried to imagine how matter could pass from one physical domain to another, or how could an object, such as a human being, for example, depend on different sets of rules of both physics at the same time?

To provide a solidity to mathematical studies, quantum physicists and others before them, used to give new names to different forms of quasi-forces and to ephemeral particles, which enabled the progress of their research. With time and dissemination of studies, taken up by all researchers and students in physics, mathematics results were transformed into laws of quantum mechanics.

Elements of this physics, resulting from it, are possible by chance. Some so-called elementary particles of the Standard Model are likely to exist as being composed of electrons. But no indication is ever given for their implication in the creation of matter in any form whatsoever.

The Planck dimensions are based on so-called fundamental constants. They are very human indeed because they depend only on observations that have supposedly been made, and with measures put into numbers, varying with the units of measuring they decided to use.

In quantum mechanics, the mass or energy quanta replace particles and the renormalisation is a surprising mathematical technique that allows researchers to change mathematical results that appear to be incorrect, according to no determined criteria, varying with their users.

Infinities are impossible in physics, and a mathematical sense to particles have been applied, which led bizarrely to the concept of antimatter.

7,5 – Antimatter

This « substance » was born in 1928, out of an equation by Paul Dirac, as much a physicist as a mathematician. He believed that the Universe was subject to mathematical rules. While others also believed it, no one ever found a mathematical sense of the Universe and all the objects it contains, including the Earth and ourselves.

Antimatter is supposed to have been another state of matter in the early phase of the Big Bang Universe.

How do we know this? No observation has been made of it, either in the period of the Big Bang, or currently…

This is the concretisation of a mathematical tool that has no physical justification.

In our Universe, the one we can touch, of which we are component parts, there is a very wide variety of materials. We can wonder why would any of them be incompatible with others and would make them disappear according to rules that can not exist in a Universe in which we know neither a conscience nor an established programme.

It is surprising that physicists working with particle colliders explain that they use positrons, of which the usual theory explains that they can not exist in our actual normal matter, the one that exists in and around in colliders.

Some physicists say they have found antimatter.

Explanations are difficult. To form any of it, some « anti » element, more primordial, would have been needed, existing or created without encountering components of « normal » matter. Is this possible?

But antimatter has been observed, according to scientists, and biologists make some use of it in medicine.

We think that they create some compounds that are almost similar to what would be their anti compounds. Combined with other elements, they form bodies whose characteristics suit these researchers. It is a natural and understandable phenomenon in the constitution of any material, and in particular the matter constituting living beings in which excessively varied proteins are continuously created, which are only slightly different from each other.
7,7 – Mathematics and Information Technology

Mathematic Science is a range of tools created by human beings, according to their reasoning and habits of thought, which has changed little since the philosophers of 2,000 years ago.

Nothing in our observations or reasoning has ever indicated that mathematical rules could control or direct the phenomena of the Universe as we know it by direct observations of random facts.

The most comprehensive mathematical studies of the phenomena observed in the Universe, or the reflections on the same subjects, were used by Galileo and Newton, Descartes and Pascal. They have become more difficult to understand especially with Maxwell and Einstein. Then the School of Copenhagen has transformed physics mainly into mathematical studies, bringing nothing to physics.

Difficult mathematic studies have established around the physics of the Universe, the feeling that a strong knowledge in mathematics was needed to understand it. This is not exact, Einstein was not a mathematician, he obtained help when this was necessary.

In the twentieth century Edward Lorenz, an American meteorologist physicist studied the chaotic system of the Universe, explaining the difficulty, or rather impossibility of forecasting based on observations of figures of randomly made events. He confirmed the impossibility of weather forecasting despite the use of very powerful and sophisticated equipment.

All the items of information we are able to collect do not allow us to predict any events. We explain this in the first chapter of this essay with the study of chance.

In recent years, with very powerful information technology, simulations are carried out to explain certain phenomena or predict other.

The information used is the same as that of mathematics, that is to say, numbers or other factors observed as a result of new events that are all made randomly.

Despite extensive studies, the results are never satisfactory, both in physics and in every other science of the phenomena of the Universe, such as astronomy, biology, and those relating to the material functioning of the humanities, economics, psychology and other related sciences.

All research results and reflections of researchers, and powerful machines such as the LHC, are accumulated in the archives. They cannot be used for further studies or significant forecasts of phenomena such as meteorology, economics or biology, useful if not essential to the life of living beings.

For the moment they can give, sometimes, only some general trends of certain events.

They can only be used effectively when they have been purged of all information about random phenomena.

The tools for this do not exist yet.

Their difficult research should be an important part of studies in mathematics and computer technology.

© Philippe Dardel – October 2016