The Legitimate Route to the Scientific Truth  Joseph Krecz Copyright© Joseph Krecz. All rights reserved. Feedback email: gondork@yahoo.com July 16th, 2019 Version 5.1 ABSTRACT We inhabit a beautiful and uniform world, a world where everything probable is possible. The humans have become a dominant component of life form on earth. Perhaps we realized early that intellectual inquiry can generate practical outcome, and the humans list of achievements are enormous and impressive. Until the Middle Ages our scientific development has sustained tolerably the existence of all life on earth. However the fast scientific and industrial development of the last two centuries has had wonderful and also devastating consequences. Human thirst for more energy and our failure to harness energy without grave polluting our planet has placed all of us on the path to probable extinction. The burning of organic matter for extracting energy has been a constant and ever increasing source of pollution, we are still doing it. The amazing human intellect has proved capable of amazing engineering discoveries. However, we failed to harvest in a safe way atomic energy and we just started to capture some of the enormous amounts of energy the sun sends in our direction. Since the epic Theory of Relativity many scientists have embarked in a pursuit of astonishing theoretical fantasies, abandoning the prudent path to scientific inquiry. The theory is a complex theoretical framework to which all universal laws of physics must conform. It is based on the abstract space-time continuum fabric concept, and it is perhaps suited and used for interpreting cosmic events. However, it is not well suited for handling of small, local topics as global warming, local energy issues, and overall common humanity matters. The theory has provided us small benefit in facilitating discoveries that are practical in outcome. Complex dogmatic theories are at times irrefutable since there is no method by which can be firmly challenged. We now forward may fancy theories and spend unimaginable effort to validate them, even when we are perhaps headed in a wrong direction. For example, in our times matters of climate changes are debated by politicians based on economical considerations that are as illogical as it can be. The venerable paths of scientific method developed during centuries by prominent scientists and philosophers has been willingly ignored and abandoned for various and prejudiced purposes. INTRODUCTION Human activity is universally justified by its essential obligation and endeavor for sustaining its existence; for preserving life. In search of efficiency, along with our human inability to tolerate undescribed chaos, we are restless on sorting and ordering of diverse objects. As Freud noted, "The benefits of order are incontestable It enables men to use space and time to the best advantage". The desired road to order is by adhering to principles such as simplification and efficiency. Primal 2 actions such as counting, grouping, and classification of objects have assisted us in the development of arithmetic, and geometry; they have aided in accomplished a unique attentiveness and facilitated the development of logical/rational awareness. Our minds require order with respect to spatial placement of objects, also with regard to the sequence and duration of events; therefore it substantiates the emergence of the concepts of time and spatial geometry. The beauty of the stunning simplicity of the world is revealed in the laws of physics. Physics describes the behavior and structure of matter, and was for long time the focus of our inquiries. It is important and puzzling to mention that generalizations are many times illogical, and nerveless the laws of nature are in some way generalizations. We also must separate the legitimate scientific method from metaphysical speculations. More important to new solutions to the wonders of science, is to challenge and refute unfounded theories based on pre-conceptions. It is obvious that progress is stagnated by the restless acceptance of useless dogmatic ideologies, and an incredible amount of effort is wasted. Science itself it is a creative activity that in many respects resembles other activities of the human mind. Scientific laws represent mathematical functional relationships between variable quantities. There are two varieties of scientists: applied scientists interested in gaining knowledge from empirical observations and techniques. And there is the pure scientist that is committed to the theoretical understanding of our world, and in some way his tasks are similar with that of solving puzzles. Scientific discoveries are valuable and perhaps now indispensable for the humanity development. It might be inaccurate yet it is necessary to say that at times scientific research has become scientific self-mutilation, a research preoccupied with increased complexity and speculation, a research that has abandoned the prudent way of validating the truth. Sometimes we accept as true improvable theories that please our intellect with extravagant formulations and results. Some theories are not only improvable, but the avenue to refute them is also non existent. They belong to human imaginative achievements such as the finest novel or symphony, and have no qualified value as scientific contributions. Genuine vs. Speculative Scientific Theories If God tells us anything, we must fully believe it; it is the divine truth. But when humans tell us anything we must allow for a chance that the truth is partially or even totally non-existing. There is no harm if it is accepted that some knowledge and truth are beyond our natural abilities to discover or even comprehend. Many serious scientific questions have no possible answer, not the entire truth is always known. Even partial scientific detail must conform to logical validation and we must be careful not to be allowed to travel in the world of fantasies. The philosophy and scientific history is packed with example of scientific errors and we should believe that it continues at the present time. The atomic structure of matter is assumed mostly theoretical, and that implies the possibility that it is tainted with fantasies and countless ad-hoc theories. Many discoveries based on empirical observations have unsound theoretical explanation by respected scientists. Some sciences can develop for a long time, be widely accepted, and still be no genuine. Conceptual inconsistency, absurdity, disorder, confusion by complexity will lead to false science. Much effort is wasted and progress is stagnated by the restless acceptance of useless dogmatic ideologies. As Descartes once said: "Many assumptions are imaginary and arbitrary inventions of our mind." Historically, many scientific theories have been initially rejected or accepted based on a general opinion, and some have survived as undisputable valid. It is reasonably expected that many "scientific discoveries" of the 20th century are not valid. An essential duty of the scientific marvel is 3 to challenge and refute entrenched theoretical pre-conceptions, to nullify the dogmatic elements of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge must be proven/verifiable knowledge; however scientific truth is in fact a universal statement and commonly it is agreed that universal statements are not entirely verifiable. Theoretically, from a probabilistic view any possible event might occur or might never occur but only God can take all things into consideration. Accepting this fact should not encourage us to allow the acceptance of dogmatic theories, the danger of such acceptance is just unmanageable. Therefore we must conclude that unverifiable scientific statements are un-scientific, but not always invalid. Some theories need other new theories to justify them. The new theories also can also be based on some other theories, and in this way we go logically nowhere. That is why at some point the empirical validation is also not only important but mandatory for a scientific discovery to be proven valid. Scientific progress or revolution is not based in replacing former valid scientific discoveries. The scientific revolutions do replace old and invalid theories that were based on assumptions that are now rejected as unfounded. The genuine scientific discoveries remain universal valid and in no danger to ever be replaced. For example the Archimedes law will always be valid and not questioned. Intellectual scientific inquiry can have practical outcome with advances in human condition. We need to discover a way to satisfy our energy needs without recklessly polluting our living environment and thus endangering our own wellbeing and even existence. The modern easy access to stored scientific knowledge guarantees the speed up of future scientific progress. In the next paragraphs I'll consider the logical framework need for the genuine scientific discovery and some of the difficulties and misconceptions of today's pure science. LOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS One of requisite of philosophy and also of science is to put forward complex information in a simple and comprehensible way. There is a deep divide between imagining and inferring as a result of a logical train of reasoning. However, reason alone, isolated from observation, can not arrive to a guaranteed valid conclusion about the nature of things. Facts do not reside in our minds and are independent of our understanding of them, and without factual evidence our conceptual theories based on reasoning alone might be appropriately qualified as guesses. Humans can be rational; however one might also rationally believe what it is false. Much valuable philosophy work exists, and it might be able to guide a scientist in making correct evaluation of a scientific endeavor. Following a few points that might guide us in accepting a theory as valid or it would encourage us to reject it until more information/proof of his validity is provided. 1. A complex dogmatic statement it is sometimes irrefutable since there is no method by which can be firmly refuted. 2. To posit a hypothesis as true when not well understood or when on large consensus that is rooted in the author's fame and not much on merit of the work. 3. Dogmatic adherence to a favorite/popular theory. 4. Scientific discoveries to be valid cannot be in contradiction to any other valid scientific laws, from whatever subject of study. Genuine laws of nature do not contradict any other truths, such as scientific or abstract logic as mathematics. No new theory should attempt to nullify legitimate empirical evidence or any conclusive logical evaluation. 4 - 5. Scientific truth is independent of our methods trying to discover it or our classification of it as valid or invalid. 6. Some intricate scientific theory can not be suitably validated, mainly because it's complexity. It must be abandoned or replaced. 7. Scientific truth must always be proven, no exceptions can be accepted. 8. Unverifiable statements – even if later proven valid still un-scientific. 9. Information truthfulness is no determined by the source or method of acquiring it. 10. Some statement are sometimes both true and false – For example if we say the "today is Monday", that can be a true statement only if it happens to be Monday indeed. 11. Can we witness an event which do not conform the laws of nature? Such an event is impossible, since any event is a consequence of the laws of nature. 12. What's probable is possible. However, just being possible alone does not provide proof of existence. 13. The abstract syllogism does not guarantee a unique conclusion, and therefore it is not suitable to be considered scientific. 14. We cannot search the world to establish that something does not exist 15. Scientific discoveries are validated by the result they arrive at and not at the method used to arrive at it. 16. Multiple observations can be soundly linked by the use of logical statements. 17. Events do not contradict a valid theory, only their intellectual interpretation might. 18. Rejecting an argument by objecting to the validity of the premises that lead to the conclusion is sometimes mistaken, because the faulty premises might allow arriving to a correct conclusion. 19. The laws of science do not distinguish between past and future. 20. In a strict sense, the laws of nature are all deterministic generalizations. 21. A generalization does not validate any particular event. 22. Abstract premises or middle-term does generate false non-abstract conclusions. 23. The syllogism conclusion does not extend the domain of the combined premises, and should not lead to generalizations. 24. It is irrational to evaluate a scientific theory on economical, political or religious considerations. 25. A generally accepted opinion is not, on that basis, guaranteed valid or a proof of its accuracy; equally, it is not a proof of its falsity. 5 - MATHEMATICS Mathematics is not the reality itself; mathematics is an abstract language of precisely describing some logical relation between quantities. There is no real line or point that meets its mathematical definitions. Impossibility of the mathematical abstraction in relation to the material world a universe filled with mathematical constructs would still be empty. Also mathematics, stripped of meaning, is an integral and indispensable part of logic. I'll like to look at some mathematical tools as statistics. Statistics provide ability in dealing with extraordinary complicated phenomena. By using probabilistic method of some event it does not imply that the event itself is not deterministic. Some problems related to weather, general population, or similar complex events can be studied only by statistic methods, but that do not imply a random characteristic but only great complexity. The probabilistic evaluation would necessitate the use of abstract concepts as random, erratic or chaotic. A chaotic or random view is based on an independent, very complex observation, beyond our mental capabilities to manage. Furthermore, a computer algorithm to generate random numbers is also deterministic, it generates numbers as it was designed and it furthermore rejects the concept of absolute randomness. Numbers randomly generated satisfy some probabilistic distribution and I can say that absolute random numbers series might not exist outside the metaphysical space. Absolute Randomness and Chaos are metaphysical concepts. There is no random or chaotic force in the Universe, since all forces are consequences of the universe creation by expansion. (big bang) The creating of new forces in the universe is impossible as stated to the universal principle of transformation. (all is a transformation, and not creation) It applies to forces also, not only on the material transformation. 1 Mathematical expression Limit a/0 → ∞ it does not relate to the physical world, it is suited for theoretical use since the concepts 0 and ∞ lead to an abstract result. In fact, in this context, a/0 should not even be allowed as a genuine division since the symbol 0 (zero) is an abstraction and the division itself never takes place. The division by 0 is widely used in physics; however the result of infinity is not suitable to be used in any material evaluation. Mathematics uses a specialized language, as the common language contains too much ambiguity and is not suited for a complex and strict logical representation. In contrast, human mind seems to be deploying a form of fuzzy logic. It can process very complex events better than a computer do, but for example can't handle arithmetic operations like an inexpensive calculator. Mathematics is indispensable structure in the progress of scientific discovery, however due to its complexity can become a difficult obstacle in the broad understanding of complex science. Statistic Mathematics, the Basis of Quantum Mechanics Great achievements of the 20 th century are the Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity. Let's examine both theories from the point of you of use of mathematics. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. – Albert Einstein 1 Our brain conforms to probabilistic logic; an event is more likely to be true is it is validity is provided by a number of independent sources. P(event) = P(observer1) + P(observer2) + P(observer3). 6 Examining with attention the famous Einstein quotation it seems that the sane view of the world is strictly deterministic, even mechanical. Just consider throwing a fair dice and always expect same results or ringing a friend's door bell and expect that he is always at home. Therefore, it seems that Einstein's view the world is strongly deterministic in nature. Probabilistic views commonly apply only to multiple events or observations. The random (nondeterministic) character of quantum mechanics is based on Heisenberg uncertainty principle. "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" states that you "can never simultaneously know the exact position and the exact speed of an object." Heisenberg stated that since you could never with great certainty measure more than one property of a particle, you could only work with probability and mathematical formulations. It is assumed that physical determinism is undermined by the quantum theory, but how and an abstraction view or method of analyses influences the material reality? It is illogical, it can not be. Since simple (singular) events do not satisfy the Heisenberg principle, we can say that they are all deterministic. There is no contradiction in the validity of the Quantum View of a system; however labeling a system non-deterministic only due to the use of statistical modeling for analyzing it can be classified as non-sense. The undisputed success of the Quantum Mechanics model proves the correctness of the mathematical model, and the uniformity of the properties of matter itself. We live in a world in which the probable is possible. The classical deterministic laws do not brake down when incorporated in a quantum system. It is impossible, since the event itself is a consequence of the laws of nature. The quantum and the deterministic view of the world are both legitimate, and represent two separate and valid views of the same system. 2 ABOUT THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." – Einstein The Theory of Relativity is a complex scientific framework that facilitates the development and understanding of the universal laws of physics. Its foundation is the mathematical abstraction of space-time continuum fabric. Theory of relativity uses daring generalizations about the inaccessible that deeply delights our imagination. The today's formal representation of the timespace continuum (a four dimensions object) is not less that a marvel of abstract mathematics. Furthermore, the associated scientific language describing it is highly elaborate and targeted to only a small and select audience. In this way, the continuous desired advances of fundamental scientific principles are reserved to only a small number of humans. The four space dimensions provide the basis for evaluation of countless theories. That without much rejection since the theories are based on complex dogmatic statements and considered valid since there is no method by which they can be firmly refuted. The theory unifies the time and space concepts in a continuum, and the space and time are not regarded as two individual concepts acting concurrently. In physics, space-time continuum is a mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. By combining space and time into a single mathematical manifold called "the Minkowski space", scientists have a tool to describe in uniform way the laws of the universe at both the cosmic or atomic levels. The theory of relativity is accepted as the work of an undisputable worshiped genius; however that alone it is not a legitimate way to validate it. 2 For example let's consider the car traffic in a city. For planning purposes a statistical view of the system will provide answers and show patterns that can not be available otherwise, but the deterministic view of the automobile in traffic is not impacted. 7 - "The great theories of science may be compared, as creative achievements, with great works of art or literature." – Jeff Giancoli The theory of relativity does separate the universal construct from the simple concept of matter and its properties, and takes science to the border of metaphysical fantasies. It replaced the Euclidian geometrical concept of space to a sophisticated, four dimensional, mathematical modeling that also incorporate the concept of time. More so, the new created mathematical model is attributed enigmatic properties such as the induction of the gravitational field or capable to "bend" the light rays, while just losing the perspective that the mathematical space representation is just an abstraction and therefore it is void of any physical properties. Based on the theory of relativity the masses distort space-time fabric nearby, and particles move in trajectories provided by the geometry of space-time fabric and objects travel along geodesics lines of the curved space-time. I have doubt and reservation to accept as valid such a daring theory that sates that the gravitational field is a consequence of a mathematical construct as the space-time continuum fabric is. A paradox that emerges from the Theory of Relativity is the properties of light. To satisfy the theory of relativity we declare that the mass of an object traveling at the speed of light is infinite. The photon – as it always travel at the speed of light as being light itself it is said to be a relativist particle, and by the modern physics theoretical structure it must satisfy the theory of relativity. Since a photon speed is the speed of light, on that relativity model its mass would be infinite. To avoid such nonsense, we arbitrarily strip the particle photon of its mass properties; and circumvent any scientific and logical considerations. The studies of the properties of light proved without doubt its matter properties, a matter object that moves in a wave pattern. Just to strip the matter object photon of its properties and declare that it has no mass for satisfying the Theory of Relativity seems illogical. Light moves at constant speed, and it is said to be the maximum speed in the universe. That implies that it was generated during the creation of our universe, during the "big bang", and it is traveling since. 3 Furthermore, it can provide insight of the rate of expansion of the universe singularity that has created the universe as we can sense it now. Since the light has wave properties, and the photon moves on a wavy pattern, the speed of light is not actually the speed of the photon, but its a linear displacement in space. That would imply that the photon itself possibly travels at higher velocity that the so defined classical "speed of light", an observation with immense scientific implications. Without the effect of gravity, the light would be traveling between two points on the shortest path, the strait line. However, the mass of the universe itself has a gravitational force that keeps it together. The light particles are influenced by gravitational fields, as any matter particle is. Thus is gravity curves the path of light, then, because of that, it is assumed by modern physics 4 that the gravity must be able to curve space itself. That is that the space itself can be curved, and it is gravitational mass that causes the curvature. The today's science goes further, and interprets even the light red-shift as due to the expansion of space itself. It is difficult to see any logical connection of these disjointed statements. We also ignore to account for basic causes for the changing path that light travels on, as the reflection, refraction or the gravitational attraction fields are. In the General Relativity we do not speak of the "force" of gravity acting on objects. Instead it says that objects and light rays follow the curved space-time construct. Indeed, the curvature of space or rather of the four dimensional space-time it is a basic aspect of Einstein's General Relativity. 3 Since the 'Law of Conservation of matter' mentioned earlier, also new light can not possibly be created. 4 According to the manual of Physics, by Douglas C. Giancoli 8 The maximum speed in the universe is assumed to be same as the speed of light; this is based on the mathematical formulation that would allow that traveling at the speed of light the mass of an object will become infinite. (an abstraction) However, the concept of infinity does not define the infinity as a fix value, but an arbitrarily and undefined value. It is not tolerable to assume that the maximum speed in the universe is limited by an abstract mathematical formulation, and not by physical consideration. The speed of a mass object is unequivocally determined and a result of the energy applied to that mass object. Therefore, the maximum speed in the universe is unrestricted by any arbitrary boundaries. Since space itself is incorporated in a more complex time-space continuum concept, it became a modeling abstraction. The gravity is real and not physically connected in any sensible ways to abstract concepts. It is not sensible to assume that the gravity will "curve" the space concept (an abstraction) that a material object later will follow. 5 The gravitational motion is a result of a force applied to a mass object, an attraction force directed to towards some other mass object. It is known that all three types of radiation consist of familiar kind of particles; in fact they are streams of oscillating particles. Beta rays are electrons, gamma rays are high energy photons – alpha rays are the nuclei of helium. In a simplistic scrutiny, the gravitation is a consequence of "radiation pressure" applied to a mass object. ..many experiments have been performed to test the predictions of the special theory of relativity. Within experimental error, no contradiction has been found. Scientists have therefore accepted relativity as an accurate description of nature. – quote from Physics by Douglas C. Giancoli However, the previous example regarding the property of photon, also the gravitation disconnect connecting a real force and a abstract construct shows a genuine contradiction with regard to the validity of parts of the Theory of Relativity, contradictions that must be scientifically and logically addressed. Yes, there are contradictions and baseless theoretical assumptions that were forwarded to assist the acceptance of the Theory of Relativity as the unquestionable ultimate scientific truth. 6 Since the underlying structure of the Theory of Relativity can not legitimately satisfy its required empirical validation it can not be accepted as legitimate science from a formal classic science point of view. Therefore, it is necessary to snub the classical scientific views, such those described by Newtonian work, when replace it with the new theory forwarded by Einstein. The danger is that the Einstein theory of science has proven unsuitable to deal with many aspects of matter properties. The universe is a matter object in space, and the matter is present in many scales of magnitude, from the elementary particles of the atomic structure to the galactic construct. A theory of our universe must regard the matter properties as a single domain, and that any scientific theory must satisfy the properties of all forms of matter objects. As it was mentioned earlier, the space-time continuum fabric is just an abstract concept, and therefore it can not, in legitimate way, be connected to the material world. It is plausible that a physicist can accept such anomalies as the striping of the photon of its mass properties and accepts it as true that the gravity bends the space-time continuum; however as a philosopher I just can not. In my view a theory is can not contradict any legitimate facts, and that the photon is a particle and therefore it has matter properties, and its properties are not open to exceptions or metaphysical interpretations. It is also said that the birth of the universe was not an explosion, because an explosion blows pieces into the surrounding space. Instead the Big Bang is believed to be an expansion of space itself; that again based on the Theory of Relativity concept. It is hard to accept such a statement since I have to abandon the rationality provided by our logical system and travel in the field of improvable and metaphysical fantasies. 5 A simpler cause for the "curved" trajectory for the moving material objects can be established, making the relativistic concept of the "curved space" unwarranted. 6 The Theory of Relativity validity is deemed unquestionably, similar as the Bible text, raising the standing of Albert Einstein to a genial scientific holiness; something not suitable for the genuine scientific progress. 9 - Since the gravitational field is mysterious for the human mind, I see this as a major opportunity for future discovery. The human race has still to handle the need of energy and that without heavily producing much waste and polluting our planet. It has to handle urgent needs such as the global warming. The Newtonian theory has provided a remarkable framework for the development of scientific discoveries, and its basic postulates have been proven genuine again and again. Most of the scientific progress in the last century can be attributed to the science and technology leaning towards empirical experimentation, and the results are incredible. Also the universal construct understanding has been enhanced also due to empirical observations based in our progress in sensing galactic objects. 7 The theory of relativity has created a wave of research, mainly in the physics related to the construct of our universe. Most of these new theories do satisfy the theory of relativity construct, but it is doubtful if that alone guarantees there validity. We need new scientific paradigm to facilitate the discoveries that would allow us to survive on the overpopulated planet, or it is just a matter of time before we are possibly heading towards extinction. It happened to other species, it will happen to us as well. We, the humans, are not eternal. New scientific progress is paramount for extending the survival prospect of our specie. 7 The Hubble telescope has provided detailed images of our universe that were not possible to be sensed before.