How much Fiction is necessary in Science?
by
Gernot M. R. Winkler

Summary

I.  Modern Astronomy began in the 16th and 17th century with the realization that only observations of nature can be the ultimate authority for the creation of better theories of the world.  Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, are the names of this intellectual revolution. We say briefly that  “Nature is supreme -  not our ideas”.

II.  Faraday took a second step by replacing the concept of  “Action at Distance” - as assumed in the classical gravitational theory and Coulomb's law - with the field concept in which the electric action is propagated from place to place. Working with this idea, Maxwell found his famous differential equations that govern the electromagnetic phenomena. Broadening this, it seems more promising for physics to start with local effects that can be closely examined, as opposed to explanations based on remote or indirectly known features. Using what we know best to explain the remote and unknown - we call this the principle of “Locality”.

III. As a third step, the most consequential and productive of the three, science abandoned the medieval endeavors to understand the world in an all embracing idea. Only by concentrating on specific phenomena can we separate, describe and simplify them consistently. This is the principle of “Specificity”.

In recent developments of our science, all three of these “Principles of Modern Natural Philosophy” seem to have been given up! At least, these are tendencies and it is interesting to review specific cases. Principle I is being ignored  when pure theoretical work advances without regard of it ever being checked by experiments or observation. This used to be known and deprecated as speculative Metaphysics. Today, this will be denied with the explanation that some remote consequences of these theories can be checked with reality. But such “checks” are only possible by making a series of  “judicious” assumptions as we see it in today's Cosmology. Principle II is being ignored when we explain local physical phenomena  by references to the whole Universe: the “remote masses” in Mach's Principle are a notorious case. Moreover, with such approaches we also deny the third principle. Claiming that one could, “in principle”, deduce the expansion of the Universe and an approximate value of the Hubble constant from the existence of Bus tickets - as mentioned in a paper by George Ellis - is typical.

I review examples, especially Mach's Principle in the light of the above. It leads me to believe that general ideas should guide us. These are the focus of my talk; it is not a report on the latest scientific advances, albeit I need to mention them.
-----------------------


                                                      . . . . . . non men che saver, dubbiar m'aggrata
                                                                                               (Dante, Inferno, canto 11)
                                                                                           Not less than knowing, doubting pleases me.

Introduction.   

Not quite so, great Dante! Your way, people might find themselves in inferno! After all, knowing is primary: we must know something before we can doubt it. While doubt is as necessary as disinfection is in hospitals, you cannot live from it. We need information because ascertaining the truth can only be done through consilience of all facts available! Then fiction must be expected everywhere, but must we not banish it as an error? Or is it useful? Can we say something about how to use reason - beyond Descartes' advice to separate the issues, and more general than what he said “pour bien conduire sa raison” ?

The first rule to mention is William of Ockham's Razor (~1340). He stated the doctrine that one must not introduce more concepts (abstract entities, details, elements, assumptions in theories) than necessary. This "Razor" (to cut off the unimportant) has been extended by others, and by Ernst Mach in his famous, but also mistaken, principle of "Economy of Thought" as the criterion for a good theory. George E. P. Box called it the Principle of Parsimony in statistics.

In its formal generality, Ockham’s Razor is of the very greatest importance - it should be a fundamental strategy for all analysis: Use as few assumptions, as few concepts as possible in your models to be safe on the average. The inclusion of more details than necessary in a theory renders it increasingly vulnerable to error because some of these details will most likely be accidental or transients. Of course, in the case of data modeling, within the range of the available data, a more complicated model produces smaller residuals, but the price to pay is a reduced confidence in extrapolation. In each case, an optimum number of details must be considered for acceptance (e.g., terms in a polynomial fit), but we do not know reality sufficiently to be able to decide what will be of importance in the future, in other words, what is systematic as opposed to what is temporary and merely accidental. In any case, the doctrine advises us how to be on the safe side. The eminent British savant Sir Harold Jeffreys states in his noted work on Probability that . . . variation must be taken as random until there is positive evidence to the contrary. In other words, robustness, and not economy, should be our aim.

The Razor's advice is to avoid splitting hairs (do not go too far in purely abstract analysis); if we ignore this, we quickly increase the likelihood of becoming totally unrealistic. Extremely abstract philosophical systems originate this way (and also some of the super advanced ad-hoc theories in “ironic” science, see below), which is why these great activities of the mind acquire a bad reputation. In this way, Ockham's Razor, wisely used, can protect us from ourselves.

A second advice would be that an Overdose of things or actions, too much of even the best (money, equipment, beliefs, rules, methodology, even virtue, good deeds, and doubts!) becomes inevitably harmful. The antique Greeks said (right) measure is best; it reflected one of their cultural ideals. In our dynamic Western culture, however, the drive is to go to the extreme, not to seek a balance, but to maximize. In the Antique, this was the sin of hubris. Any excess is a poison, as recognized five centuries ago by Paracelsus (sola dosis facit venenum, only the amount makes the poison). We ought to call it the principle of Paracelsus. It is almost unknown, if we judge from the incessant and ubiquitous attempts to do better always with more - and more - and more! Surprisingly, it is wider than, and implies even, Ockham's Razor! Using discipline will help to keep the measure.

In science, next to the all-importance of reality, the foremost Good and Necessary are the new ideas -  fantastic, new ways of looking at the enigma of nature. Without new ideas, science degenerates into a sterile collection of mere data. The new concepts can be abstract without connection to the real world, but we need them in the interpretation of experience because they can bring out new sides of reality. This is important because reality is infinite for us in its qualities and allows many different views. Our great problem is that we must learn to tolerate unusual ideas, and know when enough is enough (use the pragmatic criterion). An uncritical excess of crazy ideas leads to bad science - but actually, it seems better to lean on the side of abundance!

The central idea of modern research is the “analytical method”, as opposed to the “systems approach”. According to Descartes' famous Discourse on Method, we "break down every problem in as many separate simple elements as might be possible" (1637). These elements can then be analyzed and dealt with strictly rationally. This is his second advice, his first amounts to the need for doubt and the need to seek consilience of all available information. We could say that these are elements of what became known as the “scientific method”. But, as J. B. Conant pointed out, we need to realize also that in science we find two styles or preferences, i.e.,  Two Modes of Thought (1964): 

A) The empirical-inductive method of inquiry with emphasis on experience; and
B) The theoretical-deductive outlook based on assumed postulates.

Both are indispensable in their combination. However, they are not always used with the same emphasis. And even when using A, the aim is to find overarching principles - or better, to find ideas that contain the  experience implicitly. In Theology, as you could expect, only B is used, and almost, I hesitate saying it, also in too much of modern Cosmology - if we assume either the Cosmological Principle (perfect or not) or the Big Bang as given. Of course, the temptation is great to fit experience to corroborate the Principle, instead of using experience to check it. Hence a basic attitude of doubt is needed.

When we are asked whether an idea is true, the old question comes up: What is Truth?  -   Pilate asked it, and many people don't know how to answer it. Yet good answers exist and one should know it. Perhaps the best for us is due to Saint Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274): veritas est adequatio rei et intellectus. Truth  is the match, the fair, the sufficient representation of object by thought or speech;  a statement that is not adequate, is simply not true, object and thought do not sufficiently resemble each other, and we have to refine thinking, or taking in more details. Perfect representation is not attainable (except between abstracts), but we must attempt it as much as possible. Of course, if we say that truth is not attainable, or that one does not know what it means, people will not even try.

The ideal explanation in naturalistic science would have to show that what we observe exists by necessity;  that it is as necessary as the Pythagorean theorem; or as the fact that there are only five regular polyhedrons; or that the number of  arrangements of things is limited to n! (factorial); - or in a different way, that a certain number will inevitably come up in a random lottery if we just wait long enough. These statements reflect necessities by their nature, necessities that exist without dependence on anything else. This goes back to the old Pythagorean thought that the creative force, or the creative medium, when it acts, can only work under inescapable fundamental mathematical and logical conditions.

That this could indeed be so, is suggested by the (often found surprising) success of mathematics in the sciences; but even more so by the numerical - mathematical relations, by the symmetry groups, and by the logical conditions that we find throughout quantum mechanics in the theory of atoms and particles. Heisenberg, in his last lecture, has pointed to this as a return to the old Pythagorean - Platonic idea that numbers, logical relations and geometry are at ultimate bottom, the fundamental determining element in nature (obscured by nature's mixing up things at random). Presently, we do not know enough about particle physics to demonstrate this conclusively, but it is a hypothesis for which a proof or disproof seems possible, even though perhaps only approachable as a limit -  it is the ultimate challenge of science. Scientific work for other reasons is applied science.

A high philosophical aim is probably not in the mind of many a scientist who is, if not engaged for more mundane reasons, just curious and playful. But we have a serious problem. The bill paying public will not be willing to spend many billions for the satisfaction of curiosity and even less for entertainment (many say quite naively that it was great fun). This means, that we must view most science as applied science with useful applications desired or predicted as likely. This places a heavy burden on the vision of the administrators - and on their ethics, because here, from brilliant vision to a fraud is but one step. Therefore, if we think about fictions, they do come in variously. They are a necessary focus for interest and effort, but many fictions have been confusing detractions that caused delay in finding better methods. And quite a few could be deliberate frauds.


Mach's Principle.

This Principle is supposed to be of great importance for physics, but it is astonishing to see how long it has been accepted with only few dissenting voices. The Principle claims that it is necessary to assume that the most remote masses of the Universe provide the reference against which acceleration takes place. A body in an empty Universe would not have inertia. A century after Mach, countless papers are still being written about it and the claim appears in many textbooks as an accepted fact.

Newton discussed his bucket experiment in order to show that acceleration is very different from uniform motion where it is impossible to single out a preferred system of reference. Transformations from one uniformly moving system to another can be made without any effect on the physics in the relatively moving system (although we are about to show that there are some effects!). On the other hand, the centrifugal force that drives the water away from the axis of rotation appears to indicate that space has a property, that it is in some sense absolute. Different accelerated systems cannot be considered equivalent because of the inertial forces that come into being. But where are they coming from?

Einstein speaks repeatedly about Mach's Principle as the Relativity of Inertia, the need to refer inertia to a given system of reference. This is understandable because it was Einstein himself who changed physics by his realization that time and space are relative measures that are meaningless in an absolute sense. In his letter to Ernst Mach [1], Einstein is clear about what he means: "Denn es ergibt sich mit Notwendigkeit, dass die Traegheit in einer Art Wechselwirkung der Koerper iheren Ursprung hat, ganz im Sinne Ihrer Ueberlegungen zum Newton'schen Eimer Versuch". Einstein was reluctant to assign a property to space because at the time, space was for him purely a relational concept. 

Later, Einstein changed his mind about the principle. It is certainly amazing how much Mach's exotic idea could continue to infect (I cannot think of a more fitting expression) many ingenious minds. If we consider this matter in depth without influence from authorities, it seems clear that inertia is not caused by outside matters but must have its root in the accelerated body itself.  It is perfectly sufficient to see its inertia as the resistence to a change in its state of uniform motion. This resistance is not obvious if the force (such as the gravitational field) acts on every part of the body which can follow this action. Nevertheless, the body is changed in its state of motion, and this change is reflected in the change of its momentum and energy. If we look at the effect of the force over the acting distance  (the integral over ds),  the resistance to the accelerating force allows this force to work and change the kinetic energy of the body. There can be no question that this energy must be assigned to the body itself and not to “distant masses of the Universe”.

Mach's idea amounts to a radical turning away from doing physics on a local basis which would be preferable to invoking distant parts of the Universe of which we know absolutely nothing. To invoke the Universe as an explanatory gimmick is a left-over of metaphysics and, since it contributes nothing, unnecessary to boot.  But, old and suggestive ideas do not die easily!  George Berkeley had already stated in Newton's time that all motion, both uniform and nonuniform, was relative to the distant stars. Einstein who saw this more from a mathematical side was induced by Mach's idea to try to incorporate the principle through boundary conditions in his equations. But he abandoned the principle altogether when he later realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe. He expressed this in his letter to Pirani [3].

Well, you will say, but what about rotation? Don't we need the distant stars to define it?  Is this not the lessen from Newton's bucket experiment, mentioned by Einstein, that space has a reference for acceleration built-in? And where should this reference come from if not from the distant masses of the Universe? But stop! All this is confusion, caused by the need of an external reference for orientation, while we don't need it for measuring the speed of rotation!

Other than Mach's idea about the origin of inertia, we could only assume that either space has it “built in”, which we reject with Einstein, or it is to be located in matter itself as its resistance to a change in its state, from uniform motion. The optical experiments point us likewise to the immediate locality as the seat of the effect. We can use the Laser gyroscope to know about the rotation of our laboratory and that also suggests that the rotation effect, i.e., inertia, is strictly local and is essentially connected with the change from uniform motion. A vague reference to the distant masses does not add anything sensible.

This fact that the LASER gyroscope gives us the same information as the mechanical version suggests that in both cases, we actually measure the same effect. It can perhaps be modeled and described in various ways; we like to emphasize the physical situation. According to Mach, we would have to look for details of the claimed influence of the distant masses to produce the local inertia. For a local effect, we have to look how the body stores the effect of the accelerating force in something in addition to its greater speed, i.e., we must look at the increased momentum and kinetic energy.

Remember now, that these measures are relative to the reference system! Assume we throw a  rock of, say, 1kg, by giving it an acceleration of 200 m/s/s for 0.1 second, so that it reaches a speed of 20m/s. We have to use a force of 200 N to do this; it gives this rock an energy of 200 J. However, suppose the rock was thrown in the direction of the momentary velocity of the earth around the Sun. Before being thrown, the rock had a kinetic energy of 30,0002/2 J or 4.5×108 J. After our throw, the rock had a kinetic energy of 30,0202/2  or  600000 J (3000 times) more than it had before! Obviously, the kinetic energy is a quantity that we must compute in the inertial system where it will be used. It is a quantity relative to this system and not an absolute that is anchored in the distant masses of the Universe.

Of course, the larger energy will only be released if the rock hits a body that is at rest relative to the Sun. If it hits a body at rest in our local system, only 200 joules will be released in the impact. The “remote masses of the Universe” against which the accelerating force presumably had to work, had nothing whatsoever to do with this. The most natural way to account for the effect is to imagine that the work done by the accelerating force is stored locally; and if we insist to speculate, we could suspect that this difference in the state of energy is also the cause for the  ability to measure optically the differential speeds and rotation. Going from one system to another is seen as an energy difference by the photon, which produces the Doppler effect. By the way, if you wonder where the huge energy came from in the second computation:  it was produced by our force when it acted over the distance of  3 km instead of over 1m, as in the first case.

Another way to convince us that inertia must be an effect that is centered on the body, is to imagine a fueled rocket all by itself in an empty universe. According to Mach, there is no inertia because we have assumed the Universe to be empty. Now we fire the rocket and push a small amount dm of matter out of the rocket at the exhaust speed c, which produces a velocity incremental dv of the rocket according to
 
c.dm    =    m.dv
 
which is a fundamental equation of rocketry, but not in this case!  Not according to Mach, because he claims that inertia is not located in the body but due to, and in reference to, masses that we now assume do not exist. Without inertia, the rocket would move immediately at an undefinable high speed ! We cannot assume that  the little dm is the source of inertia of the large rocket.

Einstein's thought was originally to use the Riemannian idea of describing the physical effect through the geometry, i.e., in the way of relativity. Mathematically we could try to represent the influence of the hypothetical remote masses on the local gravitational-inertial field by establishing appropriate boundary conditions. But, as we said, Einstein had to conclude that this was not possible [3].

Moreover, when we approach the problem with the formidable mathematical tools of General Relativity, it is easy for us to lose sight of the physical situation in preference to mathematical details and the temptation is great to make things more complicated than necessary. But other than that, it is not a good approach to make assumptions about things which are totally beyond our knowledge and leave the details  unexplained. Therefore, Mach's notorious principle appears as pure speculation. However, not everybody can see it this way and the principle is still prominent in textbooks where, in view of its doubtfulness, it should not be.

But wait, we must not go too far! We cannot exclude all physics we gain by extending a mathematical theory that is purely abstract, without a “physical” concept behind it!  Quantum Mechanics, as conceived by Heisenberg, was to use solely quantities in his theory that could be measured, which reflects a positivistic bias on his part. And Bohr advocated his Correspondence Principle, which is admittedly a fiction, to produce a connection of unknowable details of the micro world with the measurable quantities. The classical picture is in fact a model to which not the same reality in the micro world corresponds. We can be certain that a photon is neither a wave nor a particle in the strict sense, and yet we use these fictitious concepts with great success because depending on the conditions, the photon behaves as a wave or as a particle.

In any case, science progresses. Since Ernst Mach, many minds have taken up the challenge to refine our concept of mass, as reviewed so admirably by Max Jammer [2]. An extreme extension of Mach's idea and a new version of pulling the Universe as whole into our physics has been given by Wheeler & Feynman in their Absorber Theory. Details are summarized by Hoyle & Narlikar [4] in a challenging monograph. In this, the core idea is to use the electromagnetic interaction as prototype, and to note that the equations allow a retarded as well as an advanced solution. Classical physics ignores the advanced solution as “making no sense”. W&F however say that an outgoing action with the retarded solution must be assumed to end somewhere and action is returned with an advanced solution. This way, through cancellation of the two, the Universe acts as a perfect absorber and this gives the local mass its properties. I realize that this super abbreviated description is but a caricature without much meaning, of an extremely ingenious approach . However, I still claim, that we have now left physics behind and engage in speculation.

In conclusion, I would say that the principle seems to be intellectually attractive for those who do not accept the need for  “locality” (our principle II). If Mach were right, however, it would imply a strong link of the depths of the Universe with laboratory physics. This connection would affect all of mechanics and include the possibility of a change of the gravitational constant with time and location. In whatever way, however, no such changes have ever been observed even in experiments with very high sensitivity (Eötvös-Dicke experiments). As it stands, the principle is without any details or mathematical expression, it claims only a vague connection which is against the available experimental evidence. Therefore, we must reject it.  If we do not, we could accept at the same level of excessive tolerance also Astrology or other pseudo-sciences.


Notes and References to Mach's Principle.

[1] Einstein's letter to Ernst Mach, dated 25. VI. 13 (reproduced in Misner, Thorne & Wheeler, Gravitation (1973, pp. 544 - 545).

[2] Max Jammer, Mass (2000), Princeton University Press. This synoptic study covers the questions that concern the history of the concept of mass, its definition and measurement. It is a comprehensive source with many references and is  indispensable for further study.

[3] Einstein's letter to F. Pirani of Feb. 2, 1954, quoted in [2], page 150, note 23.

[4] F. Hoyle & J. V. Narlikar, Action at a Distance in Physics and Cosmology (1974), W. H. Freeman & Company. By “distance” the authors mean not the Newtonian spatial distance, but the relativistically invariant 4-dimensional interval s2 = 0,  assuming that action takes place between spatially separated particles at the speed of light.


Cosmic Singularities, Creation, etc.

The singularity at r = 0 of the 1/r2 law of the Newtonian gravitational attraction has not been of much concern. Classical physics did not deal with bodies that can collapse. Pressure would put a stop to a collapse eventually, or so it was thought. Moreover, the mathematical singularity has not been assigned a physical reality as we are doing now with the singularities of General Relativity.  It seems to me that they seduce us to put things we do not know into these singularities where the failure of mathematics allows us to do it -  e.g., creation of matter from nothing!

However, if we really are doing this, that would mean that we are in danger of losing sight of the fact that singularities concern only the mathematical model. Whether and how they represent an actual physical fact is one question that can only be illuminated by physical evidence. The other, separate, question is our ability to find new or modified physical laws that can be used at the singularity also. Of course, any physical existence must have consequences that we hope to observe, but for this, we must allow additional assumptions to lead to observable facts. If we go too far in this and continue to build theories far beyond well established ground, by heaping assumptions upon assumptions, we ought to use an algorithm for the computation of a degree of belief that we can assign to our conclusions as shown in Decision Theory. For each assumption we must estimate a degree of its likelihood. The total likelihood is then the product of all the values for the assumptions we made. I recommend doing this as a standard routine for all advanced theoretical work and before making sensational press releases.

After these cautionary remarks, we now commit the dreadful sacrilege of stating that there are a number of good reasons to question the validity of the standard Hot Big Bang (HBB) hypothesis of current Cosmology. It is an insufficient concept even with various inflationary gimmicks added on, that has been accepted as established fact. It is unsatisfactory as shown by as yet unsolvable problems:

1) The time constraints. Even 14 billion years for the age of the Universe are  insufficient for the development of the largest structures we observe.  Super clusters have been identified with dimensions of up to 1 billion light years (LY) size. Yet the differential velocities within the structures are only of the order of 500  km/s which is insufficient for the explanation of such huge structures.

2) The inability to explain how condensations, galaxies, and clusters, could develop from the uniform original “soup” from which the very high isotropy and uniformity of the 2.73o K Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) is claimed to have originated. The original gas cloud at the speed of expansion had a density that seems insufficient by a factor of one hundred. This  problem is due to the observed abundance of the light elements He, D, and Li which, if their synthesis is to have happened in the original cloud, puts a limitation on the density. Hence  the ad hoc invention of a hypothetical “dark matter” to overcome this, but we have no evidence for it; analyses of the dynamics of galaxies show little evidence of excessive matter to explain the motions. We also have no proof that these clusters are actually in equilibrium, which is a basic assumption for some mass estimates.

3) By observing objects out to distances corresponding to z > 2 ( 2 - 3 GLyr), we ought to begin seeing some asymmetry in our surroundings. Otherwise, we would have to allow for us to be in a special position, near the center of the original explosion, a return to a pre - Copernican situation. In the aftermath of explosions, even in a gas cloud, things do not look the same at all distances. One can envision a  pronounced difference in the pressure - temperature history as a function of distance from the origin, which should leave behind a considerable difference in the condensed matter. But to date, no clear evidence of such an asymmetry has been published.  A succession of various “inflationary” schemes have been proposed, all of them ad hoc and with a flaw that suggested the next variety. These proposals are clearly inventions to get around the basic problem. A slight asymmetry in the received background radiation has, however, been observed and indicates  a relatively small displacement from the center of the last scattering surface - if this picture is applicable at all.

4) The  “Black Hole” (BH) problem. The BH concept is being used in two ways:

(a) As the powerhouse in the center of galaxies, using the accretion concept with the release of gravitational energy of falling matter as paradigm for the explanation of the huge energies that have been observed  (see chapter 16 of [2]).

(b) as the primeval origin in the Big Bang when all matter of the Universe was thought to have originated at one singularity. For several reasons, it is generally accepted that matter probably does have a finite age. However, this does not mean that all of it must have originated in a single event.
 
(a) and (b) are physically incompatible applications. They are mathematically justified with the excuse that a solution of the equations is available in the positive and negative direction leading to explosion and implosion, as desired. To the naive observer it appears that (b) could be used, but not necessarily in the application of the HBB as a single event. As proposed by Ambartsumian [10] a long time ago, we have indications that we observe at the center of highly active galaxies creation processes with the expulsion of extremely dense objects. HBN  [1] call these very dense ejected objects quasi Black Holes because they indicate a high gravitational red shift that is added to the distance (Hubble) red shift. A large number of them have been identified by H. Arp [11], but his work which was based largely on statistics was branded als “unsound science” by his colleagues! In the meantime, more observational evidence has been collected. Lately, a high velocity gas cloud has been observed  to come from the galactic center, showing indeed outflow and not collapse at the center in our galaxy. This would explain the observed abnormal red shifts of QSOs as the superposition of an inherent gravitational red shift and a distance red shift. A similar hint of outflow from the super dense center is the observation that the center (or BH ?) of old galaxies is apparently less massive but the bulge is larger than in young galaxies. Of course, in the standard picture, this sounds not so important - there should not be young galaxies because at the current intergalactic density new galactic condensations should not be possible any longer. However, we have clear evidence of galaxies of various ages and gas content which is a serious problem for the HBB.

A naive look at a spiral galaxy suggests somewhat of the opposite of the accepted HBB ideas. We see that matter appears to flow out from the galaxy center, in repeated eruptions. This matter is ejected at mostly radial speed, and often at opposite ends of the center, and as I believe, never tangentially. As the material reaches greater distance from the center it will be gradually left behind the rotation of the central system.  MHD (Alfven) effects are probably also involved in this cosmic plasma. In other words, we can see galaxies as the result of local creation; instead of seeing them as condensations from a uniform gas cloud. 

The existence of “Barred” spirals (type SB) is perhaps the most persuasive indication that we are observing creation at the center and outflow from there, in opposite directions. It is hard to see how one could explain this feature with random condensation or collapse at the center. We can hope that the two opposite interpretations - collapse of matter into the massive BHs at the galaxy centers, and creation of matter in the centers of galaxies - can be resolved in the course of more observations with more sophisticated instruments.

A very different explanation of the spiral structure has been suggested by Alfven. He directed attention to the presence and importance of magnetic fields and Magneto Hydro Dynamic (MHD) waves  in space. Literature is given in [3].

5) The observed CBR indicating extreme smoothness (10-5) and  uniformity seems incompatible with the condensation of galaxies and larger structures out of the original gas cloud. A complete history of this background radiation is discussed by HBN [1] (see especially their pp. 81 - 84 and 87 - 89) with suggestions of origins other than the HBB. However, we face a dilemma either way: the problem of the condensation of structures vs. the problem of the thermalization of the stellar radiation by other means. It is an obstacle for the easy abandonment of the HBB hypothesis, but I am sure, it will be resolved eventually.  On the other hand, whatever deviations from radiation uniformity are found, can be explained by proper choice of the various assumptions that have to be made. But the deviations cannot then be taken as proof for the reality of the model. HBN have various comments about why the scientific community would support a kind of mono manic science, but they are beyond the scope of this essay.

6)  Even the Hubble shift itself is something that ought not be taken for granted in its velocity interpretation. The interpretation as a universal doppler shift of cosmological origin due to a real streaming away of all matter (or of the expansion of the Universe as a claimed whole) is but one hypothesis; there are others - the “tired light” hypothesis is one of them and not the most unreasonable. If, with Hawkins, we allow even a BH to evaporate, why is it not permitted to think of a photon to leak its energy, (other than by scattering, of which we would see evidence and which we can exclude)? Another hypothesis is a potential difference in a space that grows with distance. However, if we accept the idea of a continuing creation of matter, it is likely that we see a true expansion of space (i.e., which is the modified Steady State theory as elaborated by HBN) and an explanation would be that matter that really appears out of nothing, necessarily also “creates” more space at each creative singularity .

It is not my purpose to continue these speculations for their own sake.  I want only to show, that the present state of Cosmology is unsatisfactory. It is this not because some people can see a conspiracy of silence on the part of some HBB adherents with the intent to exclude other paradigms, as it has been claimed by HBN and others - but because of a psychological fact of which we ought to be more clearly aware: A firm belief in a persuasive concept, as we find the HBB, displaces the use of all different options in the minds of the researchers. It is always possible to develop more and different mathematical models; the great problem is whether they can carry science further towards reality with the same overall paradigm. Of course, this creates a dilemma: on one side we must never disparage new ideas in science - we ought to embrace them, but with caution and doubt. On the other, we have seen before that a blind, persistent forging ahead in the same overall direction, has often turned out to be futile. Now, the situation is breathtaking with the variety of new technologies and the magnitude of effort that go into advanced research. The scientific community, more and more automated in the data handling, is overwhelmed by data. However, it is good to remember that one should not blindly replace quality with quantity. We should do this only if quality is not available. Many discoveries in the past would not have been made in a fully automated data handling - collection and reduction - without the application of individuals who noticed the unusual. This unusual has often turned out to be the source of better theories. I question to what extent one can include human alertness in the programs.

The power of ideas (which at first, are necessarily just unproven fictions)  to direct our interest and to prevent the examination of competing views is the basis for Thomas Kuhn's theory of paradigm shifts in science [12]. Unless other views, such as sketched above, are tolerated and looked into with interest, instead of being disregarded, ridiculed, or even suppressed, more and more inconsistencies will fail to be seen in their proper light, i.e., the possible need for a radical paradigm shift.  It could delay the achievement of a more consistent and more mature state in science, and would waste manpower and careers.


Notes and References to Cosmic Singularities:

[1] Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar (HBN) present in their book  A Different Approach to Cosmology (Cambridge, 2000), an authoritative review that is not sufficiently known. It is a highly edifying history of modern Cosmology, told by major contributors, and a discussion of a variety of theories. I am using  edifying in the most general sense, meaning a relevant connection with the subject of this essay as well as with astrophysics and cosmology.

[2]  John N. Bahcall and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics (1997), is a great anthology of specific reviews. This highly meritorious work is intended to introduce prospective researchers to the subject by giving them the currently accepted picture with literature and perceived problems.

[3] Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, (1991). In this popular book, Lerner criticizes the standard cosmological doctrine (i.e., the HBB) with a huge amount of interesting ideas and factual information. But, as effective as he is in his attack, he fails to convince that Alfven's and his own ideas of a Plasma Universe are a sufficient answer to the cosmic riddle, even though, they should make an important contribution. He reports a loss in the reception of very distant signals at CBR frequencies (p. 277 and Aph.J. 361, 63-68, 9/20 1990). But I question that the magnitude observed is sufficient for solving the problem of thermalization of the CBR. He also goes a little against our principle III: he connects a vast amount of historical, social, religious, and political events with progress in science. His pointing to connections with theology are justified, but several of his comments are not only an “overdose” but misleading. They make negligible explanatory contributions at the price that they distract from his worthy subject. From the Biblical Adam and Eve story to coal strikes in the modern world, everything is brought into the problems of Cosmology!

[4] George F. R. Ellis, Cosmology and Local Physics, (2001), arXiv:qc/0102017 of 5 Feb 2001. This is an excellent review with overall views and numerous literature citations. Nevertheless, I disagree with some conclusions. E.g., for Ellis, the question of Mach's principle is still open and undecided. This is incredible! Ellis repeats the frequent assertion that Newtonian Cosmology arrived only after Relativity. This is not correct. Charlier [5] showed very early on that a “clumpy” matter distribution in which larger structures are separated by ever larger  distances, would not necessarily lead to Olbers' paradox in Newtonian physics. In the meantime, it has been found indeed, that clusters and super clusters of galaxies, follow a distribution of rapidly decreasing density of matter for increasing averaging volumes. Homogeneity of matter in the universe at large is, therefore, not a realistic assumption. It would be more realistic to start with the assumption of a fractal aggregate, out to indefinite distances. The idea is supported by computer studies [8], [9].  Concerning the Interconnectedness of the Universe, much emphasized in the paper, I suspect that on the contrary, the huge time delays in all global interactions in relation to the sub-system processes, have a pronounced decoupling effect in this “system”. The title of the paper conveys the author's conviction that one could learn physics from Cosmology, at least in principle. But, as said before, it seems illogical to go from the least known of which we know but a single case, to explain the best known. Of course, we should go as far as we can to explain distant phenomena on the basis of known physics, but must be prepared to discover more due to the different conditions in space.

[5] C.V.L. Charlier (1908), Wie eine unendliche Welt aufgebaut sein kann, Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, 4, 1-15 and
C.V.L. Charlier (1922), How an infinite world may be built up, Arkiv for Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, 16, 1-34.  Charlier assumed progressively increased distances between larger aggregates. It is remarkable how matter density decreases with larger averaging volumes (not with increasing distance!):

Averaging Volume                Average Density
-----------------------------------------------
Atomic nucleus      2.7 × 10EXP  14  g/cm3
Earth               5.5 × 10EXP   0
Solar System        2   × 10EXP -12
Center of Galaxy          10EXP -22  (or a few orders of magnitude larger)
Galaxy average            10EXP -23
Cluster average           10EXP -29
Radius  1Gpc          <   10EXP -30  without the hypothetical “dark” matter

It is not unreasonable to assume average zero material density in space as a limit as r goes to infinity. It is certainly more realistic than a current unshakable assumption of isotropy and homogeneity of the Universe at large. Moreover, the stipulated “dark” matter cannot be matter as we know it, but must be assumed to exist solely for the purpose to reach the density that is required for the condensation of the aboriginal matter in the short available time of less than 109 years. However, the observed motions in and between the galaxies do not justify an assumption of so much gravitating matter. The accepted theory of the origin of the light nucleons at the beginning of time, does also not allow the creation of so much baryonic matter. As things stand today, a century later, one is tempted to say that Charlier presented realistic ideas that have been much extended and corroborated in the meantime by de Vaucouleurs [15].

Of course, the standard hot big bang (HBB) is a much more ambitious hypothesis, but at the price of too many  “reasonable” assumptions and  “well chosen” arbitrary constants. They take away the last trace of “necessity” in the theory, our criterion for a good explanation.

[6] H. Bondi, Cosmology (1952), Cambridge. This work, updated 1960, discusses the various problems and is valuable for its many references to earlier work. The sequence of the three works, this with the next, and with [4], shows the same gradual change in the accepted understanding of Cosmology as it is given in [1].

[7] D. W. Sciama, Modern Cosmology (1971), Cambridge. One could wish to see Sciama's high standard of critical scientific reporting applied today, even though, several of Sciama's comments (e.g., regarding the QSOs) have been overtaken by new discoveries and are no longer valid.

[8] Benoit Mandelbrot, Les objets fractals - forme, hasard et dimension (1975), Flammarion, Paris. In Chapter VI, M discusses as an application of his ideas  the spatial distribution of stellar matter, including the effects of a diminishing average density with volume, and the implications for Olbers' paradox. More work has been published since then. It is my impression, however, that this work is not yet being appreciated by the profession to the extent of its full potential.

[9] M. Fleischmann, D.J. Tildesley, and R.C. Ball, Fractals in the Natural Sciences (1990), Princeton. A collection of papers dealing with applications that include Time Series Analysis and Fractal Aggregation.

[10] V.A. Ambartsumian, Structure and Evolution of Galaxies (1965), Proc. 13th Conf. on Physics. University of Brussels. (Wiley).  This and earlier publications of A. in 1958 and 1961 are discussed extensively in chapter 12 of [1].

[11] H. C. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1987) (Berkeley, Interstellar Media). The pertinent lesson for my essay is that scientists (his colleagues and superiors) are human, too. All-too-human. But, could this humanity not be better restrained?

[12] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962, 1970), University of Chicago Press. I  know of no work that stresses as much the importance of ideas - new and brilliant, or entrenched old ones -  for the conduct of research, as this one. At the same time, it is a worthwhile history of many interesting details of scientific progress in several different areas. It is a work that has been invariably misunderstood (see the revealing interview of Kuhn by John Horgan [13]). The theme of Kuhn's work is, of course, central to my essay, with [11] as an interesting case study.

[13]  John Horgan (1996), The End of Science, Addison-Wesley. Is there an end in sight? Will we know everything of importance? And if, what is science going to do then? A large number of notable science personages are interviewed and their personalities are brought out by H, a gifted science writer for The Scientific American. H’s book is a competent, solid work (the last two chapters are “blue sky speculation”). It offers insight into human aspects of the most advanced parts of science.  H distinguishes two types of science (in addition to applied science): Philosophically motivated research in an attempt to understand Nature with the question of what is behind of it all. A critical discipline is indispensable for it. Opposed to it is Ironic Science, which goes far beyond the range of proof and lacks a comparable critical discipline. It is motivated more as an intellectual game. The problem is that the public (and the budgeting authorities) do not recognize the difference and give the same credence to all overly publicized pronouncements, when actually many science news fall into the ironic category and have only an ephemeral life. See also [14] and [16].

[14] No better example for Horgan’s Ironic Science (and for an unrestrained excess of wild ideas) could be found than the book by Stephen W. Hawking (1988),  A Brief History of Time. From the Big Bang to Black Holes. This noted presentation - supposed to be “popular” because of  absence of mathematics - of the most advanced parts of physical science covers a great deal of fascinating information. The major problem is, however, that throughout the book, things go repeatedly from the solid to the wildest speculation on top of a mountain of speculation in one step, and back. The book is a case of a most interesting speculative super rationality without any intellectual restraint, of a thinking that has lost connections with the solid ground. The title, by itself an unintended warning, shows a concept of time that imparts to it an existence as such, as opposed to the concept of time as the relational abstract parameter of change, our most fundamental experience (which is an empiricist definition). The object idea would be a seductive step back toward an absolute existence by itself.

The confusion is compounded many times. On p. 23,  H speaks of “an object (!) called space-time!”  This shocking absence of critical thought continues throughout. His Glossary is a collection of poorly conceived, even inconsistent definitions that confuse the reader. On page 185, Mass is defined as “The quantity of matter in a body”. A little below, the Neutrino is said to be “An extremely light (possibly massless) elementary matter particle . . “. Well, this is plain nonsense. How could a massless particle be matter if the quantity of matter, as just defined, is mass? This sort of thoughtlessness is typical for science in the style of science fiction,  worse than the ideology that we find so often in the biological fields.

Of course, from a human point of view, Hawking’s performance is truly heroic, exemplary and utterly admirable considering his most regrettable physical condition. Moreover, we ought to be not critical of H as an individual case; he deserves our deep sympathy and admiration, but I am distressed by the general culture in science that promotes now these excesses - in contrast to earlier discouragement. Hawking is a most prolific, imaginative and creative scientist. It would be a great achievement to use a little more reluctance to publish so quickly every phase of his rapidly changing and ever more adventurous ideas. If he could add a coefficient of likelihood as mentioned above, it would separate him more clearly from the science fiction crowd.

[15] de Vaucouleurs, G. (1970), The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology, Science 167 - pp. 1203-1213 (Feb. 27). Continuing and comparing  Charlier's argument [5] with the results of his own extensive research of deep space objects, de Vaucouleurs finds that roughly,  with increasing size of an object, the average material density decreases with the square of the averaging size. I assign high weight to this finding because it originated from a long and intense concern with the matter as opposed to abstract information learned from the work of others, which I suspect is a less reliable lead to insight. Of course, with the very low material densities that we find on the basis of de Vaucouleurs' work, the use of the General Relativity representation of gravity in the Universe at large, I believe, appears as an unnecessary expense. Moreover, as a bonus, there are now also no puzzling singularities of global solutions!

[16] Paul Feyerabend, Science in a free Society (1978). Those who believe that the “scientific method” exists as a set of fixed rules and behavior ought to read this book. The author is a highly learned representative of an “anything goes” group - which in my mind goes too far. The work is a heavy dose of intellectual anarchism. It is highly interesting and stimulating, and is pertinent to the questions of paradigm change, behavior of the scientific crowd, and dictatorship of the majority. To bad that it is not more realistic in many of the conclusions expressed. They are not necessarily wrong, but an “overdose” of biting criticism on some subjects which are not that important.

Today with the increased confusion due to information pollution, we face more than ever before the need for sober, constructive critique. The core problem in intellectualism is not having many ideas (every fool has them), but the sifting of the valuable from the useless and superficially attractive (assuming that we know what is right in the first place). I can see no more effective criterion for doing this but the pragmatic one - what is the effect going to be? In addition, one should ask the question: How would I handle this? A thoroughly honest answer requires vision (which must be trained), and discipline (to control the Ego, which must also be trained). After more than half a century of professional life, I venture to think that our free society does not sufficiently train its youngsters in either.


Can all processes be understood in “locality”?
(The Locality Paradigm Today)

The Summary mentioned Faraday's idea of the field as the carrier of physical effects, a concept that has been perfected in mathematical form by Maxwell in his famous equations for the electric and magnetic field. The equations link the two fields and their temporal variation. They are based on the following phenomena:

An electric current generates a magnetic field. A (spatially or temporally) changing electric field generates a magnetic field. A changing magnetic field generates an electric field (electro-magnetic induction). In the derivation of his most general differential equations, however, Maxwell had to assume that a magnetic field is generated also by a virtual current that closes a conducting circuit. He called it displacement current, which is obviously a fiction, but it worked and Maxwell's theory is one of the great triumphs of physics.

However, there are problems and, as we know, they turned up as soon as one tried to apply the Maxwell theory to atomic physics. The first disappointment has been the realization that electrons within the atom, do not behave as expected for an accelerated (circular) motion of an electric charge. Bohr showed a way out with his famous postulates that started modern quantum physics on its triumphal path. But, these postulates have been really a brilliant ad hoc invention to evade the problem, and more serious problems were yet to come.

This became evident with the behavior of electromagnetic (em) radiation at very high frequencies, e.g. in the optical region. The em field goes beyond the model of classical physics - it is more than what we knew about it at high frequency, old fashioned radio engineering, i.e., the radiation shows properties of particles in addition to its wave character. This is hard enough to conceive and yet, it is not all. Much worse was yet to come, to be grasped with new concepts and ideas.

In the two slits experiment, the photoelectric effect and the interference phenomena it became not only clear that light shows the behavior of particles or of waves respectively. The same double behavior had now also to be assigned to electrons, up to this point thought to be bona fide particles. But this is not what they are, they are elementary particles and follow the laws of the quantum world, i.e., quantum mechanics and not of classical mechanics. And one more great surprise was in store, a behavior of these fundamental particles, photons, and electrons, that seems to go against our logic and common sense. Radically new concepts and ideas had to be incorporated in our concepts to produce a theory, which as quantum mechanics, until now has us never disappointed. But, at least as much, and often more than in relativity, basic meanings in quantum mechanics have been grossly misunderstood because the formalism is totally abstract, designed to give correct answers, without attempts to relate the details to what we think is reality. We accept in our macro world that we can observe things objectively, i.e., gain facts  with our person as completely eliminated as possible. But this requirement can be taken beyond of what we call absence of bias. If we say that this or that is an objective fact, it still means that it is a fact as it can be observed by any person. This we call Interpersonal Objectivity, or Weak Objectivity, because we do not know what it is that we observe, existing as such, without anyone observing and thinking about it. We name Strong Objectivity (or hard Realism) the belief that it is still the same, in contrast to the former weak objectivity or weak reality. The reason why we have to make this apparently crazy distinction is that in the micro world, in the world of the quantum, it does make a difference whether anyone has asked nature a question in the form of an experiment, or not. Or perhaps better, a photon or electron takes on the quality that we want to know only at the moment we are asking; it does it in response and as part of the process of giving us the answer in a specific instrumentation, but not before - because it had no defined state as such (without an interaction). People will argue whether we must say, it had no state, or that we cannot assign a state to it. For the positivist or empiricist, it does not matter. For realists, it does matter. If our picture as just given is “realistic”, it really has no state because these states have only a relational sense. Of course, if you have read Kant and his critics, you should be prepared.

This is so “philosophical” that many physicists (Bohm, Vigier) think that this goes too far, that there must be somewhere a determining “Hidden Parameter” that exists even before the question is asked. Even Einstein did not accept Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation as the last word in physics and was opposed to the use of probability as a physical Explanation (as he said, God does not play dice). The question continues to split the profession.

I remember a conference in NYC of some fifteen years ago, when the foremost experts of quantum measurement debated this meaning to no end - much to the consternation and finally open alarm of a reporter who was sitting next to me. He turned and said, but this is incredible, here we are building atomic power stations, and atomic bombs and now I have to realize that the experts do not understand the meaning of their theories. They seem to have no idea!  I had to tell him that this was indeed so, but that he did not have to worry because it concerned not the details of importance to the engineering of the applications he had mentioned. These have all been well established and checked in numerous experiments. Here we were concerned ONLY (!) with our fundamental understanding of nature!

Actually I believe, the idea is not as strange as it sounds and the reason that so many physicists refuse to accept Bohr's explanation of quantum mechanics is that they are too fixed on Classical Realism, or strong realism, where things have inherent properties that will determine their behavior in respect to a future experimental situation. The new understanding is for the quantum object to have only relational properties, and not inherent properties.

I gained a better mental picture of the situation in an early experience that made me realize that we have this problem even in our macro world. I had been working at the Observatory in Graz in the early fifties and was on my way to my job in the evening when I saw, straight ahead, a terrific meteor slowly coming down and explode. I noted my observations and called the city paper asking  people, who saw the same thing to please, write what they saw, on a postcard to me at the observatory, hoping I could deduce the location of the phenomenon.

The result  was astonishing. I received perhaps fifty cards with some of the most unbelievable stories! Many were typical  “flying saucer” observations! One or two were obviously totally invented - on the spot! When I mentioned this to my uncle in law, who was an experienced lawyer, he said that this did not astonish him the least. Many people you must know, he said, are very poor witnesses, they develop their opinion while they speak! Most do not know exactly what they are going to say, they just answer questions and more details come out only in response to these searching questions, but these are details of which they themselves had no clear idea that they knew them! Of course, this can be devastating to their counsel who does not know of these details.

Here is the crucial point; They behave just like a particle! I think that both, the particle and the mind of the witness, are extremely complicated, semi-closed systems that have only occasional interaction with the outer  “reality”, but in the meantime have continued internal (“amorphous”) developments of which we cannot have any idea because they are in flux, below consciousness, or in the case of particles, cannot be observed between interactions. These details do not exist in the mind (or the particle's system) in a concrete, i.e., fixed way before the searching question forces the person to “take a stand”, which only now crystallizes the internal process in respect to the question and changes the subconscious into abstract knowledge and words. For this reason, I accept the Copenhagen view as a deep insight that is not in conflict with a realistic world view. But, we have to refine our understanding.

By the way, this is my explanation for the extreme sensitivity of the response to the exact wording of a question in the so called “scientific” opinion surveys!  Of course all this raises questions about the inner structure, if there is any at all, of the particle. I believe namely, that we can picture it as a packet of confined oscillating energy, flipping between different modes within boundaries of which we know nothing, and it is impossible on the basis of prior measurements to accurately predict what the individual particle will do at the next measurement. Moreover, this internal process seems to remain connected to a second particle at arbitrary distances, a spectacular failure of “locality”! In specific cases they cannot be separated in analysis. In my opinion, all this shows the need for radically new ideas in physics which in this case, crystallized in the mind of Niels Bohr - in response to Einstein's severe criticism of a paper of his!

Notes and References to the Locality Paradigm:

[1]  Bernard d’Espagnat (1985), Une incertaine réalité, Gauthier-Villars.  Prof. d’Espagnat begins his introduction with the firm statement: Indispensable est la philosophie, as if to support my thesis that we need more thought in science. We tend to go through our education too fast, relying on memory to pass examinations and, under time pressure, we leave true insight until later. But the occasions may never come back with the opportunity to consult the more experienced. I am somewhat distressed by my suspicion that not all scientists realize that their profession, in contrast to most others, is open ended! It is an incredible challenge that you can take up if you do not get bogged down with “administration” - or with the uncounted frivolous distractions that our culture offers the unwary. -  By the way, translations exist of several books by Bernard d'Espagnat, as listed  on alibris.com or amazon.com. I cite only the two I have read, as being a superior  presentation of an extremely demanding subject.

[2] Bernard d'Espagnat (1981),  A La Recherche du Reel. Le regard d'un physicien. Bordas, Paris. The discussion of  “Bell's Inequality” is understandable to the non expert because of an absence of mathematics. The result of Bell's theorem forced the question to what degree a state of the particle is defined before the interaction takes place. A further implication is the so called Inseparability in the case of particles with a common origin. They remain, and must be considered as, a single system where the assumed state of one particle is immediately reflected in the second particle, however far they are separated! This disturbed Prof. Bell himself considerably. He mentioned to Prof. C.O. Alley and me on a visit to his laboratory in Geneva (with subsequent correspondence) that he would rather allow a modification in relativity theory than drop hard reality!

A group of experiments called “delayed choice experiments” check the effect and follow a proposal by John Wheeler. Experiments by Aspect, Alley, Zeilinger, Shih, and others decided in favor of Bohr's interpretation (weak reality) of the extremely puzzling results of these so called EPR (Einstein, Podolski & Rosen) experiments and Bell’s inequality. But the dispute about Inseparability continues ever since the famous Bohr - Einstein exchange because the old guard of classical determinism (with Einstein as the most prominent representative) is holding out. It is instructive how deeply our position in everything is influenced by our ideas and basic philosophical convictions. Bohr is more inclined to empiricism, in contrast to most others who are hard realists (believing in inherent qualities), as most of the materialists are (which for an empiricist is an extreme position). Paradoxically, they expect nature to be according to their ideas, as a hard reality and not as an enigma. A compilation of papers on this subject is in [3].

[3] J.A. Wheeler & W.H. Zurek (ed.) (1983), Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton.
--------------------------------------------


Copyright @Gernot M. R. Winkler 2005                                                                       February 2, 2005

This paper was presented at a Colloquium at the U.S. Naval Observatory,  10 February 2005,
Pictures and  transparencies available on request or directly here . .  (if your browser can do it).

The controversy regarding the Big Bang hypothesis is reflected very well in an open letter to the scientific community :  Here !

Last addition made  05/14/2009