Category Archives: Physics

A bright UFO hovering in the night sky, shining a beam of light down onto trees below.

Is There Any Scientific Evidence UFO’s Are Real?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Internet searches for the keyword acronym “UFO” (unidentified flying object) are among the most popular on the Internet. According to Google, there are five million global searches per month for the keyword acronym “UFO”(without the quotes).

Let us start with a little background. Surprisingly, the United States Air Force (USAF) officially created the acronym “UFO” in 1953. Their intent was to replace the more popular phrases such as “flying saucers” and “flying discs” because of the variety of shapes reported. In their official statement, the United States Air Force defined the term UFO as “any airborne object which, by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features, does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be positively identified as a familiar object.”

The phenomena, namely UFO sightings, are worldwide. Various governments and civilian committees have studied them. The conclusions reached by the various organizations that have studied them vary significantly. Some conclude UFOs do not represent a threat and are of no scientific value (see, e.g., 1953 CIA Robertson Panel, USAF Project Blue Book, Condon Committee). Others conclude the exact opposite (see, e.g., 1999 French COMETA study, 1948 USAF Estimate of the Situation, Sturrock Panel).

Given the sheer volume of unexplained sightings by credible witnesses, including military, police, and civilian witnesses, there is little doubt that the UFO phenomenon is real and worldwide, and for the most part, there is no widely accepted public or scientific explanation of what they are or what their intentions might be.

Three popular speculations regarding UFOs are:

  1. They are future generations of humans who have mastered the science of time travel, and they are coming back either to observe us or to carry out other intentions.
  2. They are technologically advanced aliens from another planet who have mastered the science of time travel, and they are coming here either to observe us or to carry out other intentions.
  3. They are secret government (United States or any government) experimental spacecraft, and by some accounts they are reverse engineered from advanced alien spacecraft in the government’s possession.

In my estimation, the ninety-page 1999 French COMETA study (the English translation stands for“Committee for In-Depth Studies”) is the most authoritative source of UFO information and provides a thoughtful, balanced view. Here are the facts that led me to this position:

  • The COMETAmembership consisted of an independent group of mostly former “auditors” (i.e., defense and intelligence analysts) at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, a high-level French military think tank, and by various other highly qualified experts. The independence of the group lends credence that the findings and conclusions would not be censored.
  • The French government did not sponsor it. This lends credence that the COMETA members were objective and not politically guided.
  • The COMETA study was carried out over several years. This lends credence that the COMETA study is a thorough account of UFO phenomena, not a hastily put out government press release.

The 1999 COMETA study concluded:

  1. About 5% of the UFO cases studied were inexplicable.
  2. The best hypothesis to explain them was the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH), but they acknowledged this is not the only possible hypothesis.
  3. The authors accused the US government of engaging in a massive cover-up of UFO evidence.

According to the 1999 COMETA study, a small but significant percentage of UFOs are likely of extraterrestrial origin. You will find an English translation of the 1999 COMETAstudy at this website address: http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/COMETA_part2.pdf.

Based on the above information, the answer to the subject question (i.e., Is There Any Scientific Evidence UFO’s Are Real?) is no. However, the COMETA study goes a long way in establishing UFO’s as a phenomena worthy of scientific study.

A surreal, glowing clock surrounded by swirling golden particles and abstract light patterns in a dark background.

Can Time Travel Be Used as a Weapon?

Categories, Physics, Technology, Threats to Humankind, Time Travel, , ,

Time travel will be the ultimate weapon. With it, any nation can write its own history, assure its dominance, and rule the world. However, having the ultimate weapon also carries the ultimate responsibility. How it is used will determine the fate of humankind. These are not just idle words. This world, our Earth, is doomed to end. Our sun will eventually die in about five billion years. Even if we travel to another Earth-like planet light-years away, humankind is doomed. The universe grows colder each second as the galaxies accelerate away from one another faster than the speed of light. The temperature in space, away from heat sources like our sun, is only about 3 degrees Kelvin (water freezes at 273 Kelvin) due to the remnant heat of the big bang, known as the cosmic microwave background. As the universe’s acceleration expands, eventually the cosmic microwave background will disperse, and the temperature of the universe will approach absolute zero (-273 degrees Kelvin). Our galaxy, and all those in our universe, will eventually succumb to the entropy apocalypse (i.e., “heat death”) in a universe that has become barren and cold. If there is any hope, it lies in the technologies of time travel. Will we need to use a traversable wormhole to travel to a new (parallel) universe? Will we need to use a matter-antimatter spacecraft to be able to traverse beyond this universe to another?

I believe the fate of humankind and the existence of the universe are more fragile than most of us think. If the secrets of time travel are acquired by more than one nation, then writing history will become a war between nations. The fabric of spacetime itself may become compromised, hastening doomsday. Would it be possible to rip the fabric of spacetime beyond a point that the arrow of time becomes so twisted that time itself is no longer viable? I do not write these words to spin a scary ghost story. To my mind, these are real dangers. Controlling nuclear weapons has proved difficult, but to date humankind has succeeded. Since Fat Man, the last atomic bomb of World War II, was detonated above the city of Nagasaki, there has been no nuclear weapon detonated in anger. It became obvious, as nations like the former Soviet Union acquired nuclear weapons, that a nuclear exchange would have no winners. The phrase “nuclear deterrence” became military doctrine. No nation dared use its nuclear weapons for fear of reprisal and total annihilation.

What about time travel? It is the ultimate weapon, and we do not know the consequences regarding its application. To most of humankind, time travel is not a weapon. It is thought of a just another scientific frontier. However, once we cross the time border, there may be no return, no do-over. The first human time travel event may be our last. We have no idea of the real consequences that may ensue.

Rarely does regulation keep pace with technology. The Internet is an example of technology that outpaced the legal system by years. It is still largely a gray area. If time travel is allowed to outpace regulation, we will have a situation akin to a lighted match in a room filled with gasoline. Just one wrong move and the world as we know it may be lost forever. Regulating time travel ahead of enabling time travel is essential. Time travel represents humankind’s most challenging technology, from every viewpoint imaginable.

What regulations are necessary? I have concluded they need to be simple, like the nuclear deterrence rule (about thirteen words), and not like the US tax code (five million words). When you think about it, the rule of nuclear deterrence is simple: “If you use nuclear weapons against us, we will retaliate, assuring mutual destruction.” That one simple rule has kept World War III from happening. Is there a similar simple rule for time travel?

I think there is one commonsense rule regarding time travel that would assure greater safety for all involved parties. I term the rule “preserve the world line.” Why this one simple rule?

Altering the world line (i.e., the path that all reality takes in four-dimensional spacetime) may lead to ruination. We have no idea what changes might result if the world line is disrupted, and the consequences could be serious, even disastrous.

The preserve the world line rule is akin to avoiding the “butterfly effect.” This phrase was popularized in the 2004 film The Butterfly Effect, with the now famous line: “It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly’s wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world.” Although the line is from a fictional film, the science behind it is chaos theory, which asserts there is a sensitive dependence on the initial conditions of a system that could result in a significant change in the system’s future state. Edward Lorenz, American mathematician, meteorologist, and a pioneer of chaos theory, coined the phrase “butterfly effect.” For example, the average global temperature has risen about one degree Fahrenheit during the last one hundred years. This small one-degree change has caused the sea levels around the world to rise about one foot during the same period. Therefore, I believe, it is imperative not to make even a minor change to the past or future during time travel until we understand the implications.

Based on the above discussion, the implications of using time travel as a weapon are enormous. However, if time travel is used as a a weapon, we have no idea how this may impact the world line. If it is possible to adhere to the preserve the world line rule, traveling in time may become safe. Remember, our first nuclear weapons were small compared to today’s nuclear weapons. Even though they were comparatively small, the long-term effects included a 25% increase in the cancer rate of survivors during their lifetime. We had no idea that this side effect would result. Similarly, we have no idea what the long-term effects will be if we alter the world line. We already know from laboratory experiments that the arrow of time can be twisted. Things done in the future can alter the past. Obviously, altering the past may alter the future. We do not know much about it because we have not time traveled in any significant way. Until we do, preserving the world line makes complete sense.

A visualization of cosmic web structure showing interconnected filaments and dense clusters of galaxies in space.

Why Most of the Universe Is Missing?

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , ,

In 1933, Fritz Zwicky (California Institute of Technology) made a crucial observation. He discovered the orbital velocities of galaxies were not following Newton’s law of gravitation (every mass in the universe attracts every other mass with a force inversely proportional to the square of the difference between them). They were orbiting too fast for the visible mass to be held together by gravity. If the galaxies followed Newton’s law of gravity, the outermost stars would be thrown into space. He reasoned there had to be more mass than the eye could see, essentially an unknown and invisible form of mass that was allowing gravity to hold the galaxies together. Zwicky’s calculations revealed that there had to be 400 times more mass in the galaxy clusters than what was visible. This is the mysterious “missing-mass problem.” It is normal to think that this discovery would turn the scientific world on its ear. However, as profound as the discovery turned out to be, progress in understanding the missing mass lags until the 1970s.

In 1975, Vera Rubin and fellow staff member Kent Ford, astronomers at the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, presented findings that reenergized Zwicky’s earlier claim of missing matter. At a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, they announced the finding that most stars in spiral galaxies orbit at roughly the same speed. They made this discovery using a new, sensitive spectrograph (a device that separates an incoming wave into a frequency spectrum). The new spectrograph accurately measured the velocity curve of spiral galaxies. Like Zwicky, they found the spiral velocity of the galaxies was too fast to hold all the stars in place. Using Newton’s law of gravity, the galaxies should be flying apart, but they were not. Presented with this new evidence, the scientific community finally took notice. Their first reaction was to call into question the findings, essentially casting doubt on what Rubin and Ford reported. This is a common and appropriate reaction, until the amount of evidence (typically independent verification) becomes convincing.

In 1980, Rubin and her colleagues published their findings (V. Rubin, N. Thonnard, W. K. Ford, Jr, (1980). “Rotational Properties of 21 Sc Galaxies with a Large Range of Luminosities and Radii from NGC 4605 (R=4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R=122kpc).” Astrophysical Journal 238: 471.). It implied that either Newton’s laws do not apply, or that more than 50% of the mass of galaxies is invisible. Although skepticism abounded, eventually other astronomers confirmed their findings. The experimental evidence had become convincing. “Dark matter,” the invisible mass, dominates most galaxies. Even in the face of conflicting theories that attempt to explain the phenomena observed by Zwicky and Rubin, most scientists believe dark matter is real. None of the conflicting theories (which typically attempted to modify how gravity behaved on the cosmic scale) was able to explain all the observed evidence, especially gravitational lensing (the way gravity bends light).

Currently, the scientific community believes that dark matter is real and abundant, making up as much as 90% of the mass of the universe. However, dark matter is still a mystery. The most popular theory of dark matter is that it is a slow-moving particle. It travels up to a tenth of the speed of light. It neither emits nor scatters light. In other words, it is invisible. Scientists call the mass associated with dark matter a “WIMP” (Weakly Interacting Massive Particle). However, the WIMP particle is speculative and to date has not been proven to exist. In addition, it is not predicted by the standard model of particle physics. (Some physicists have performed reformulations of the standard model to have it predict the WIMP and other particles. However, none of the particles predicted by the reformulated standard model have ever been verified.)

There is little doubt, though, that dark matter is real. There experimental evidence is solid. The rotation of stars, planets, and other celestial masses orbit galaxies, like ours, too rapidly relative to their mass and the gravitational pull exerted on them in the galaxy. For example, an outermost star should be orbiting slower than a similar-size star closer to the center of the galaxy, but we observe they are orbiting at the same rate. This means they are not obeying Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s general theory of relativity. This faster orbit of the outermost stars suggests more mass is associated with the stars than we are able to see. If not, the stars would fly free of their orbits, into outer space.
We can see the effect dark matter has on light. It will bend light the same way ordinary matter bends light. This effect is gravitational lensing. The visible mass is insufficient to account for the gravitational lensing effects we observe. Once again, this suggests more mass than what we can see.

We are able to use the phenomena of gravitational lensing to determine where the missing mass (dark matter) is, and we find it is throughout galaxies. It is as though each galaxy in our universe has an aura of dark matter associated with it. We do not find any dark matter between galaxies.

While there is no doubt that dark matter is real, its nature remains a mystery. Is it a particle? Is it a new form of energy? All effort to detect the WIMP particle over the last decade or so have been unsuccessful, including considerable effort by Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and Fermilab. Where does this leave us? The evidence is telling us the WIMP particle might not exist. We have spent about ten years, and unknown millions of dollars, which so far leads to a dead end. This appears to beg a new approach.

To kick off the new approach, consider the hypothesis that dark matter is a new form of energy. We know from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence equation (E = mc2), that mass always implies energy, and energy always implies mass. For example, photons are massless energy particles. Yet, gravitational fields influence them, even though they have no mass. That is because they have energy, and energy, in effect, acts as a virtual mass.

In my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, I suggested an approach to test the hypothesis that dark matter may be a new form of energy. Because of the length of discussion necessary to describe my suggested approach, I will not go into it in this post. My main point in this post is to suggest we widen our investigation into the nature of dark matter to include the hypothesis that it may be a new form of energy. As a scientist, I think we have to broaden our search. I acknowledge it is possible that dark matter may be a WIMP particle, but we have no conclusive evidence after over ten years of research. Therefore, we should widen our search to include the hypothesis that it is a new form of energy.

A vibrant cosmic explosion with bright orange and red hues surrounded by a dark purple and blue starry background.

Why Is There Almost No Antimatter In the Universe?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Multiverse, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

One of the great mysteries of our universe, and a weakness of the Big Bang theory, is that matter, not antimatter, totally makes up our universe. According to the Big Bang theory, there should be equal amounts of matter and antimatter. (Note: The Big Bang theory asserts that the universe originated from a highly dense energy state that expanded to form all that we observe as reality.)

If there were any significant quantities of antimatter in our galaxy, we would see radiation emitted as it interacted with matter. We do not observe this. It is natural to ask the question: where is the missing antimatter? (Recall, that antimatter is the mirror image of matter. For example, if we consider an electron matter, the positron is antimatter. The positron has the same mass and structure as an electron, but the opposite charge. The electron has a negative charge, and the positron has a positive charge. Antimatter bears no relationship to dark matter. (Dark matter is discussed in the next chapter.)

Several theories float within the scientific community to resolve the missing antimatter issue. The currently favored theories (baryogenesis theories) employ sub-disciplines of physics and statistics to describe possible mechanisms. The baryogenesis theories start out with the same premise, namely the early universe had both baryons (an elementary particle made up of three quarks) and antibaryons (the mirror image of the baryons). At this point, the universe underwent baryogenesis. Baryogenesis is a generic term for theoretical physical processes that produce an asymmetry (inequality) between matter and antimatter. The asymmetry, per the baryogenesis theories, resulted in significant amounts of residual matter, as opposed to antimatter. The major differences between the various baryogenesis theories are in the details of the interactions between elementary particles. Baryogenesis essentially boils down to the creation of more matter than antimatter. In other words, it requires the physical laws of the universe to become asymmetrical. We need to understand what this means.

The symmetry of physical laws is widely accepted by the scientific community. What does “symmetry” mean in this context?

  • First, it means that the physical laws do not change with time. If a physical law is valid today, it continues to be valid tomorrow, and any time in the future. This is a way of saying that a time translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Second, it means that the physical laws do not change with distance. If the physical law is valid on one side of the room, it is valid on the other side of the room. Therefore, any space translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.
  • Lastly, it means that the physical laws do not change with rotation. For example, the gravitational attraction between two masses does not change when the masses rotate in space, as long as the distance between them remains fixed. Therefore, any rotational translation of a physical law will not affect its validity.

This is what we mean by the symmetry of physical laws.

Next, we will address the asymmetry of physical laws. In this context, “asymmetry” means that the symmetry of physical laws no longer applies. For example, a law of physics may be valid in a specific location, but not in another, when both locations are equivalent. Is this possible? Maybe. There has been experimental evidence that the asymmetry is possible (a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws). For example, radioactive decay and high-energy particle accelerators have provided evidence that asymmetry is possible. However, the evidence is far from conclusive. Most importantly, it does not fully explain the magnitude of the resulting matter of the universe.

This casts serious doubt on the baryogenesis theories. In addition, the baryogenesis theories appear biased by our knowledge of the outcome. By making certain (questionable) assumptions, and using various scientific disciplines, they result in the answer we already know to be true. The universe consists of matter, not antimatter. Therefore, baryogenesis theories may not be an objective explanation. However, apart from the Big Bang Duality theory, it is science’s best theory of the missing antimatter dilemma.

The Big Bang Duality theory, described in my book Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries and also summarized below, provides a simpler explanation, which does not violate the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. From this viewpoint, it deserves consideration.

In essence, the Big Bang Duality theory hypothesizes that the Big Bang was the result of a collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter particles in the Bulk (i.e. A super-universe capable of holding countless universes. In theory, it contains our own universe, as well as other universes.).
 
This theory rests on the significant experimental evidence that when virtual particles emerge from “nothing,” they are typically created in matter-antimatter pairs. Based on this evidence, I argued in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, the Big Bang was a result of a duality, not a singularity as is often assumed in the Big Bang model. The duality would suggest two infinitely dense energy particles pop into existence in the Bulk. These are infinitely energy-dense “virtual particles.” One particle would be matter, the other antimatter. The collision between the two particles results in the Big Bang.
 
What does this imply? It implies that the Big Bang was the result of a matter-antimatter collision. What do we know about those types of collisions from our experiments in the laboratory? Generally, when matter and antimatter collide in the laboratory, we get “annihilation.” However, the laws of physics require the conservation of energy. Therefore, we end up with something, rather than nothing. The something can be photons, matter, or antimatter.
 
You may be tempted to consider the Big Bang Duality theory a slightly different flavor baryogenesis theory. However, the significant difference rests on the reactants, those substances undergoing the physical reaction, when the infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles collide. The Big Bang Duality postulates the reactants are two particles (one infinitely energy-dense matter particle and one infinitely energy-dense antimatter particle). When the two particles collide, the laboratory evidence suggests the products that result are matter, photons, and antimatter. Contrary to popular belief, we do not get annihilation (nothing), when they collide. This would violate the conservation of energy. Consider this result. Two of the three outcomes, involving the collision of matter with antimatter, favor our current universe, namely photons and matter. This suggests that the collision of two infinitely dense matter-antimatter pairs statistically favor resulting in a universe filled with matter and photons. In other words, the universe we have. While not conclusive, it is consistent with the Big Bang being a duality. It is consistent with the reality of our current universe, and addresses the issue: where is the missing antimatter? The answer: The infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter pair collides. The products of the collision favor matter and energy. Any resulting antimatter would immediately interact with the matter and energy. This reaction would continue until all that remains is matter and photons. In fact, a prediction of the Big Bang Duality theory would be the absence of observable antimatter in the universe. As you visualize this, consider that the infinitely energy-dense matter and antimatter particles are infinitesimally small, even to the point of potentially being dimensionless. Therefore, the collision of the two particles results in every quanta of energy in each particle contacting simultaneously.
 
You may be inclined to believe a similar process could occur from a Big Bang singularity that produces equal amounts of matter and antimatter. The problem with this theory is that the initial inflation of the energy (matter and antimatter) would quickly separate matter and antimatter. While collisions and annihilations would occur, we should still see regions of antimatter in the universe due to the initial inflation and subsequent separation. If there were such regions, we would see radiation resulting from the annihilations of antimatter with matter. We do not see any evidence of radiation in the universe that would suggest regions of antimatter. Therefore, the scientific community has high confidence that the universe consists of matter, and antimatter is absent.
 
I have sidestepped the conventional baryogenesis statistical analysis used to explain the absence of antimatter, which is held by most of the scientific community. However, the current statistical treatments require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws. Essentially, they argue the initial expansion of the infinitely dense energy point (singularity) produces more matter than antimatter, hence the asymmetry. This appears to complicate the interpretation, and violate Occam’s razor. The Big Bang Duality theory preserves the conservation of energy law, and does not require a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws.
 
Let me propose a sanity check. How comfortable is your mind (judgment) in assuming a violation of the fundamental symmetry of physical laws? I suspect many of my readers and numerous scientists may feel uncomfortable about this assumption. The most successful theory in modern physics is Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which requires the laws of physics to be invariant in any inertial frame of reference (i.e., a frame of reference at rest or moving at a constant velocity). If you start with the Big Bang Duality theory, it removes this counterintuitive assumption. This results in a more straightforward, intellectually satisfying, approach, consistent with all known physical laws. Therefore, this theory also fits Occam’s razor (i.e., A principle of science that holds the simplest explanation is the most plausible one, until new data to the contrary becomes available.).
A wooden hourglass with sand flowing through, casting a shadow on a beige surface.

Is Time a Measure of Change? No!

Categories, Physics, , , ,

As humans, we measure time via change. For example, the second hand of a clock changes positions in a predictable manner that allows us to determine how many seconds have elapsed. However, imagine if the second hand stopped. Has time stopped? Of course not. We know that time is still continuing, even though our clock has stopped. As trivial as this example is, it points out one important aspect of time. It is not connected to change. Even if we were in a totally dark isolated room, our minds would still be aware that time is continuing. However, some may argue our minds are changing from one state of consciousness to another, and that is why we are aware of the passage of time. So let us remove all minds and consciousnesses from the universe. Does time still exist? To address this question, let us understand entropy. Entropy may be defined as a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system’s thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.Some physicists would argue that the entropy of the universe is always increasing, thus always changing. Therefore, the logic proceeds, time exists because entropy is continually changing (i.e., increasing). However, at some point, the entropy of the entire universe will reach its maximum value. This means all energy has degraded to heat. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” Some physicists refer to it as “heat death.” At this point, has time stopped? I would argue it has not stopped. Why? Because the heat of the universe continues to exist, even when entropy has ceased to increase. This brings us to an important point. If time is not a measure of change, then what is it?

I argue that time is actually a measure of existence, not change. To understand this, let us consider a mass’ movement in time. Essentially, we can define a mass’ movement in time as existence. Let us take a simple example to illustrate this definition. Pretend we are viewing a mass and recording its position, which is at rest. The mass is not moving in any of the spatial dimensions. However, at a later interval (let us pretend our wristwatch records an hour to have passed), we again view the mass and record its position. We observe the mass still exists, and the coordinates are identical to the first set of measurements. In effect, the mass has moved in time along with us. Since the mass and we are in the same frame of reference, we have every reason to believe the rate of the movement of the mass in time is equivalent to our rate of movement in time. If the mass did not move in time—for example, stopped moving in time—it would not be there at the recorded coordinates for the second measurement. We would say it ceased to exist. On this basis, we can assert existence equates to movement in time. In this case, both the mass and we, the observers, moved in time at the same rate.

If you think this is far fetched, consider what occurs when a clock moves close to the speed of light. A clock moving close to the speed of light will appear to run slower to an observer at rest (one frame of reference) relative to the moving clock (another frame of reference). In simple terms, time is not an absolute, but is dependent on the relative motion of the event and observer. It may sound like science fiction that a clock moving at high velocity runs slower, but it is a widely verified science fact. Even the clock on a jet plane flying over an airport will run slightly slower than the clock at rest in the airport terminal. Einstein predicted this time dilation effect in his special theory of relativity, and he derived an equation to calculate the time difference. If we apply this to elementary particles with a short decay time, they will actually exist longer (i.e., not decay) if they are accelerated close to the speed of light. Once again, we (the observers) continue to measure the existence of the elementary particle in the future. From our frame of reference it has not changed (i.e., decayed), but continued to exist. For completeness, I will also mention that time dilation occurs in the presence of a strong gravitational field. Therefore, a clock close to the Sun would run slower than a clock on Earth, because the Sun has a much greater gravitational field than the Earth.

Scientifically speaking, there is no consensus on the definition of time. Even though we humans typically use change to measure time in our everyday world, time dilation experiments suggest this is only a convenience. It works because we are not typically measuring entities traveling at the speed of light or in vastly different gravitational fields. However, to my mind, some of the simple examples presented above, along with time dilation experiments, suggest time is more closely aligned with existence, not change.

Close-up of an antique clock face showing the time at 11:55 with Roman numerals and a warm, golden glow.

Is Time Real Or Just a Construct of Our Mind?

Categories, Physics, Time Travel, Universe Mysteries, , , , , , ,

Philosophers have debated the nature of time for over 2500 years, and have left us with three principal theories, listed below in no particular order:

1) Presentists Theory of Time—The “presentists” philosophers argue that present objects and experiences are real. The past and future do not exist. This would argue that time is an emerging concept, and exists in our minds.

2) Growing-Universe Theory of Time—The “growing-universe” philosophers argue that the past and present are real, but the future is not. Their reasoning is the future has not occurred. Therefore, they reason the future is indeterminate, and not real.

3) Eternalism Theory of Time—The “eternalism” philosophers believe that there are no significant differences among present, past, and future because the differences are purely subjective. Observers at vastly different distances from an event would observe it differently because the speed of light is finite and constant. The farthest-away observer may be seeing the birth of a star while the closest observer may be seeing the death of the same star. In effect, the closest observer is seeing what will be the future for the farthest-away observer.

Now let us ask what does science have to say about time and start by discussing the “arrow of time.” The flow of time, sometimes referred to as the “arrow of time,” is a source of debate, especially among physicists. Most physicists argue that time can only move in one direction based on “causality” (i.e., the relationship between cause and effect). The causality argument goes something like this: every event in the future is the result of some cause, another event, in the past. This appears to make perfect sense, and it squares with our everyday experience. However, experiments within the last several years appear to argue reverse causality is possible. Reverse causality means the future can and does influence the past. For example, in reverse causality, the outcome of an experiment is determined by something that occurs after the experiment is done. The future is somehow able to reach into the past and affect it. Are you skeptical? Skepticism is healthy, especially in science. Let us discuss this reverse causality experiment.

In 2009, physicist John Howell of the University of Rochester and his colleagues devised an experiment that involved passing a laser beam through a prism. The experiment also involved a mirror that moved in extremely small increments via its attachment to a motor. When the laser beam was turned on, part of the beam passed through the prism, and part of the beam bounced off the mirror. After the beam was reflected by the mirror, the Howell team used “weak measurements” (i.e., measurement where the measured system is weakly affected by the measurement device) to measure the angle of deflection. With these measurements, the team was able to determine how much the mirror had moved. This part of the experiment is normal, and in no way suggests reverse causality. However, the Howell team took it to the next level, and this changed history, literally. Here is what they did. They set up two gates to make the reflected mirror measurements. After passing the beam through the first gate, the experimenters always made a measurement. After passing it through the second gate, the experimenters measured the beam only a portion of the time. If they chose not to make the measurement at the second gate, the amplitude of the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was extremely small. If they chose to make the measurement at the second gate, the deflected angle initially measured at the first gate was amplified by a factor of 100. Somehow, the future measurement influenced the amplitude of the initial measurement. Your first instinct may be to consider this an experimental fluke, but it is not. Physicists Onur Hosten and Paul Kwiat, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, using a beam of polarized light, repeated the experiment. Their results indicated an even larger amplification factor, in the order of 10,000.

Although the above experimental results are relatively new, the classic double slit experiment implies exactly the same conclusion, namely future measurements can influence past behavior. For those of you not familiar with the double slit experiment, a brief synopsis is provided below.

There are numerous versions of the double-slit experiment. In its classic version, a coherent light source, for example a laser, illuminates a thin plate containing two open parallel slits. The light passing through the slits causes a series of light and dark bands on a screen behind the thin plate. The brightest bands are at the center, and the bands become dimmer the farther they are from the center. The series of light and dark bands on the screen would not occur if light were only a particle. If light consisted of only particles, we would expect to see only two slits of light on the screen, and the two slits of light would replicate the slits in the thin plate. Instead, we see a series of light and dark patterns, with the brightest band of light in the center, and tapering to the dimmest bands of light at either side of the center. This is an interference pattern and suggests that light exhibits the properties of a wave. We know from other experiments, for example the photoelectric effect, that light also exhibits the properties of a particle. Thus, light exhibits both particle- and wavelike properties. This is termed the dual nature of light. This portion of the double-slit experiment simply exhibits the wave nature of light. Perhaps a number of readers have seen this experiment firsthand in a high school science class.

The above double-slit experiment demonstrates only one element of the paradoxical nature of light, the wave properties. The next part of the double-slit experiment continues to puzzle scientists. There are five aspects to the next part.

1. Both individual photons of light and individual atoms have been projected at the slits one at a time. This means that one photon or one atom is projected, like a bullet from a gun, toward the slits. Surely, our judgment would suggest that we would only get two slits of light or atoms at the screen behind the slits. However, we still get an interference pattern, a series of light and dark lines, similar to the interference pattern described above. Two inferences are possible:

a. The individual photon light acted as a wave and went through both slits, interfering with itself to cause an interference pattern.
b. Atoms also exhibit a wave-particle duality, similar to light, and act similarly to the behavior of an individual photon light described (in part a) above.

2. Scientists have placed detectors in close proximity to the screen to observe what is happening, and they find something even stranger occurs. The interference pattern disappears, and only two slits of light or atoms appear on the screen. What causes this? Quantum physicists argue that as soon as we attempt to observe the wavefunction of the photon or atom, it collapses. Please note, in quantum mechanics, the wavefunction describes the propagation of the wave associated with any particle or group of particles. When the wavefunction collapses, the photon acts only as a particle.

3. If the detector (in number 2 immediately above) stays in place but is turned off (i.e., no observation or recording of data occurs), the interference pattern returns and is observed on the screen. We have no way of explaining how the photons or atoms know the detector is off, but somehow they know. This is part of the puzzling aspect of the double-slit experiment. This also appears to support the arguments of quantum physicists, namely, that observing the wavefunction will cause it to collapse.

4. The quantum eraser experiment—Quantum physicists argue the double-slit experiment demonstrates another unusual property of quantum mechanics, namely, an effect termed the quantum eraser experiment. Essentially, it has two parts:

a. Detectors record the path of a photon regarding which slit it goes through. As described above, the act of measuring “which path” destroys the interference pattern.
b. If the “which path” information is erased, the interference pattern returns. It does not matter in which order the “which path” information is erased. It can be erased before or after the detection of the photons.

This appears to support the wavefunction collapse theory, namely, observing the photon causes its wavefunction to collapse and assume a single value.

5. If the detector replaces the screen and only views the atoms or photons after they have passed through the slits, once again, the interference pattern vanishes and we get only two slits of light or atoms. How can we explain this? In 1978, American theoretical physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) proposed that observing the photon or atom after it passes through the slit would ultimately determine if the photon or atom acts like a wave or particle. If you attempt to observe the photon or atom, or in any way collect data regarding either one’s behavior, the interference pattern vanishes, and you only get two slits of photons or atoms. In 1984, Carroll Alley, Oleg Jakubowicz, and William Wickes proved this experimentally at the University of Maryland. This is the “delayed-choice experiment.” Somehow, in measuring the future state of the photon, the results were able to influence their behavior at the slits. In effect, we are twisting the arrow of time, causing the future to influence the past. Numerous additional experiments confirm this result.

Let us pause here and be perfectly clear. Measuring the future state of the photon after it has gone through the slits causes the interference pattern to vanish. Somehow, a measurement in the future is able to reach back into the past and cause the photons to behave differently. In this case, the measurement of the photon causes its wave nature to vanish (i.e., collapse) even after it has gone through the slit. The photon now acts like a particle, not a wave. This paradox is clear evidence that a future action can reach back and change the past.

To date, no quantum mechanical or other explanation has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. We are dealing with a time travel paradox that illustrates reverse causality (i.e., effect precedes cause), where the effect of measuring a photon affects its past behavior. This simple high-school-level experiment continues to baffle modern science. Although quantum physicists explain it as wavefunction collapse, the explanation tends not to satisfy many in the scientific community. Irrefutably, the delayed-choice experiments suggest the arrow of time is reversible and the future can influence the past.

The above experimental results raise questions about the “arrow of time.” It appears that under certain circumstances, the arrow of time can point in either direction, and time can flow in either direction, forward or backward. If that is true, we can argue time has a physical reality. In other words, it is not a construct of our mind. The reality of time implies that actions in the past can influence the future and actions in the future can influence the past. If time were simply a mental construct, it would not be possible for future events to influence the past.

One last point, none of the above negates Einstein’s view of reality consisting of four-dimensional space-time. All aspects of relativity continue to apply. The above article is intended to substantiate that nature of time itself is a physical reality and not a mental or mathematical construct.

Nature of Light

Can Anything Travel Faster Than the Speed of Light?

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

Can anything travel faster than the speed of light? To answer this question, let us understand the nature of light. Here are three salient facts about light:

1. First, light can exhibit both the properties of a wave and a particle. For all of the Nineteenth Century, and for the early part of the Twentieth Century, most scientists considered light “a wave,” and most of the experimental data supported that “theory.” However, classical physics could not explain black-body radiation (the emission of light due to an object’s heat). A light bulb is a perfect example of black-body radiation. The wave theory of light failed to describe the energy (frequency) of light emitted from a black body. The energy of light is directly proportional to its frequency. To understand the concept of frequency, consider the number of ocean waves that reach the shore in a given length of time. The number of ocean waves than reach the shore, divided by the length of time you measure them, is their frequency. If we consider the wave nature of light, the higher the frequency, the higher the energy.

In 1900, Max Planck hypothesized that the energy (frequency) of light emitted by the black body, depended on the temperature of the black body. When the black body was heated to a given temperature, it emitted a “quantum” of light (light with a specific frequency). This was the beginning of Quantum Mechanics. Max Planck had intentionally proposed a quantum theory to deal with black-body radiation. To Planck’s dismay, this implied that light was a particle (the quantum of light later became known as the photon in 1925). Planck rejected the particle theory of light, and dismissed his own theory as a limited approximation that did not represent the reality of light. At the time, most of the scientific community agreed with him.

If not for Albert Einstein, the wave theory of light would have prevailed. In 1905, Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model to solve a scientific problem known as the photoelectric effect. In 1905, the photoelectric effect was one of the great unsolved mysteries of science. First discovered in 1887 by Heinrich Hertz, the photoelectric effect referred to the phenomena that electrons are emitted from metals and non-metallic solids, as well as liquids or gases, when they absorb energy from light. The mystery was that the energy of the ejected electrons did not depend on the intensity of the light, but on its frequency. If a small amount of low-frequency light shines on a metal, the metal ejects a few low-energy electrons. If an intense beam of low-frequency light shines on the same metal, the metal ejects even more electrons. However, although there are more of them, they possess the same low energy. To get high-energy electrons, we need to shine high-frequency light on the metal. Einstein used Max Planck’s black-body model of energy, and postulated that light, at a given frequency, could solely transfer energy to matter in integer (discrete number) multiples of energy. In other words, light transferred energy to matter in discrete packets of energy. The energy of the packet determines the energy of the electron that the metal emits. This revolutionary suggestion of quantized light solved the photoelectric mystery, and won Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921. You may be surprised to learn that Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantizing light—and not on his more famous theory of relativity.

2. Second, the speed of light in a vacuum sets the speed limit in the universe. Nothing with a (rest) mass travels faster than light in a vacuum. In addition, this is a constant, independent of the speed of the source emitting the light. This means that the light source can be at rest or moving, and the speed of light will always be the same in a vacuum. This is counterintuitive. If you are in an open-top convertible car speeding down the highway, and your hat flies off, it begins to move at the same speed as the car. It typically will fall behind the car due to wind resistance that slows down its speed. If you are in the same car, and throw a ball ahead of the car, its velocity will be equal to the speed of the car, plus the velocity at which you throw it. For example, if you can throw a ball sixty miles per hour and the car is going sixty miles per hour, the velocity of the ball will be one hundred twenty miles per hour. This is faster than any major league pitcher can throw a fastball. Next, imagine you are in the same car and have a flashlight. Whether the car is speeding down the highway or parked, the speed of light from the flashlight remains constant (if we pretend the car is in a vacuum). The most elegant theory of all time, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, uses this property of light as a fundamental pillar in its formulation.

3. Third, the quanta of light have no rest mass. This last property of light may explain why light in a vacuum sets the upper limit of speed in the universe. According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, any object with (rest) mass becomes infinitely massive as it approaches the speed of light. By inference we can argue that it would take infinite energy to accelerate a mass to the speed of light.

However, there are other physical entities that have speeds that may equal or even exceed the speed of light. For example, the universe is considered to be expanding faster than the speed of light by numerous cosmologists. Another physical process known as quantum entanglement may also take place at or even faster than the speed of light. Quantum entanglement refers to two particles (photons, for example) which interact and become entangled, such that even when separated the quantum state of one particle will dictate the quantum state of the other particle. For example, if one photon has an angular momentum defined as spin up, the other particle will have an angular momentum of spin down, to conserve spin. If you change the angular momentum of either particle, the other particle appears to instantaneously change, such that they continue to conserve spin. The effects of gravity also appear to propagate at the speed of light. Today, science still questions the nature of gravity. In classic physics, gravity was thought of as an invisible field between two or more masses. However, some physicists speculate the existence of a particle called a graviton, which is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation. If gravitons exist, physicists speculate that they travel at the speed of light.

What does all this mean? Basically, it means that light (photons) may not be the only entities that travel at the speed of light in a vacuum.

A Holy Bible placed next to a microscope on a wooden surface, symbolizing the intersection of science and faith.

Can Science Replace Religion?

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries, ,

Stephen Hawking, the world’s most famous scientist, made a startling statement on September 2, 2010, one week prior to the release of his new book, The Grand Design. He declared the “Almighty” irrelevant. Dr. Hawking believes that M-theory may hold the ultimate key to understanding everything, even the birth of the universe. Therefore, the need for religion becomes unnecessary. Of course, critics ask where M-theory came from. This is surprising since Dr. Hawking is on record saying, “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” To my mind, this is the right question.

Dr. Hawking is just one scientist, albeit highly famous. In general, what do scientists believe? Numerous studies, regarding scientists in the United States, indicate about a third are atheists, a third agnostic, and a third believe in God or a higher power. Similar studies of the general population suggest that three-fourths of the population believes in God or a higher power. (Survey 2005-2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York). What does this mean? A majority in the scientific community no longer look to religion for answers, but to their science.

The elegance and orderliness of scientific theories and mathematics becomes seductive and, in effect, replaces a need for a higher deity. However, this is not to say there is any unified conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to replace religion with science. In fact, without intention, science and religious ethics appear to have much in common. Einstein wrote in “Essays in Physics” (1950), “However, all scientific statements and laws have one characteristic in common: they are “true or false” (adequate or inadequate). Roughly speaking, our reaction to them is “yes” or “no.” The scientific way of thinking has a further characteristic. The concepts which it uses to build up its coherent systems are not expressing emotions. For the scientist, there is only “being,” but no wishing, no valuing, no good, no evil; no goal. As long as we remain within the realm of science proper, we can never meet with a sentence of the type: “Thou shalt not lie.” There is something like a Puritan’s restraint in the scientist who seeks truth: he keeps away from everything voluntaristic or emotional.”

However, regardless of the inherent ethics, shared by science and religion, one thing that stands in the center of this passionate debate is the existence of miracles. For something to be a true miracle, it must be outside the natural laws of science. In effect, natural law is suspended, and a miracle happens. A majority of scientists have difficulty believing this. Einstein summed this up in the following statement, “Development of Western science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationships by systematic experiment (during the Renaissance).” To illustrate the difficulty of suspending natural laws, consider this example. If I told you apples fall up instead of down, would you believe me? Probably not. You probably would not even argue with me. My guess is that you would likely be dismissive, and ignore me. Yet, at the heart of various religions is the belief in miracles.

Is it possible to suspend natural laws? I suspect most scientists would answer a resounding “No!” However,what may have been considered a miracle just a hundred years ago is easily explained by today’s science. Television would be an example. In 1914, it would have appeared miraculous to watch television. It involved principles of science and engineering that were not understood at that time. I point this out because I don’t think that miracles can be used to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. Consider this example: Advanced aliens may have a science that appears to suspend natural laws. Perhaps they know how to create “worm holes” and travel vast distances, faster than the speed of light. To our observations, they may be violating another pillar of modern physics, namely the speed of light in a vacuum is the upper limit of velocity in the universe. However, simply because we do not understand their science does not mean that they have suspended natural law. They simply have learned secrets about nature we have not discovered. They know how to harness more energy than we do, which allows them to apparently violate nature laws and create miracles. This may make them appear god-like, but they are not the deity worshiped by the major religions of the world.

I judge that many in the scientific community believe that science will ultimately be able to answer all questions, and they are willing to replace religion with science. I do not share this view. Often, it appears that every significant scientific breakthrough results in an equally profound mystery. I have termed this irony of scientific discovery the Del Monte Paradox, namely:

Each significant scientific discovery results in at least one profound scientific mystery.

Here is an example to illustrate this paradox. Consider the discovery of the Big Bang theory. For this discussion, please view it as a scientific framework of how the universe evolved from a highly dense energy point to the universe we experience today. While the scientific community generally accepts the Big Bang theory, it is widely acknowledged that it does not explain the origin of the energy that was required to create the universe. Therefore, the discovery of the Big Bang theory left science with a profound mystery. Where did the energy originate to create a Big Bang? This is arguably the greatest mystery in science, and currently an area of high scientific focus.

In the final analysis, I don’t think it will come down to science proving or disproving a deity exists. I don’t think it will come down to science discovering a theory of everything. I think it will come down to what it has always come down to over the centuries, namely, faith. To answer the title question, can science replace religion, I offer these thoughts. If you believe that science will ultimately be able to answer every question and enable humans to become god-like, then it is logical to assume science can replace religion. If you believe that science will never be able to answer all questions and ultimately we will   be left with a profound mysteries, then I think its possible to make a case that science will not be able to replace religion. Whatever your believe, I respect your right to formulate your own beliefs.

 

Abstract digital artwork featuring swirling golden and orange lines against a dark purple and black background.

Is String Theory Pseudoscience?

Categories, Physics, , ,

Is string theory pseudoscience? To address this questions, let’s start by understanding what constitutes science and distinguishes it from pseudoscience.

Let’s start by defining science. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The important words in this definition are “observation” and “experiment.” In other words, real science, and scientific theories, requires its hypotheses and associated predictions to be observable and/or be experimentally verified. One example of a solid scientific theory is Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It has withstood over one hundred years of observation and experimental scrutiny. In fact, it is generally held as the “gold standard” that all theories of science should be measured against.

With the above understanding, if I were to propose a new theory that by its inherent nature had at its core hypotheses that we are unable to experimentally verify and yielded predictions we would not be able to observe or measure, I believe many would consider such a theory to be pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific, but are not verified, or verifiable, by experiment or  observation.

Now let’s examine string theory. String theory is built on the idea that elementary particles are not point-like objects, but are the vibration modes of one-dimensional “string-like” entities of energy. Proponents of string theory generally argue that it offers a theory of gravity and may provide a solution to the problem of reconciling Einstein’s general relativity with quantum mechanics. Therefore, if it were a valid theory, it would represent a leap in the physical sciences. However, there in lies the key question. Is it a valid theory?

Let start with its hypotheses. Can we measure or observe the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy that form the core hypotheses of string theory? The answer is no, and that is an emphatic no. We cannot measure them with today’s science, and it is unlikely that we will ever be able to measure them. According string theorist the one-dimensional vibrating strings of energy are about equal to the Planck length, which is the smallest length science theorizes to exist. It is equal to 1.616199(97)×10^−35 meters and is defined from three fundamental physical constants, which I won’t to into here for the sake of brevity. The problem is that today’s science is unable to measure anything smaller than 10^-18 meters, which is billions of times larger than a Planck length. Many in the science community do not think we will ever be able to measure a Planck length, regardless of improvements in measurement technology. Therefore, the first significant problem with string theory is that its hypotheses are not verifiable.

Let’s next look at a significant predictions of string theory. In its current form, M-theory (i.e., membrane-theory, the most comprehensive form of string theory), it predicts there are 11 space-time dimensions, in serious disagreement with our senses and the most recent observations using particle accelerators. There is no experimental evidence of additional dimensions beyond the 4 space-time dimensions of Einstein’s general relativity.

There are arguably other issues with string theory, but the above two points, the lack of experimental verification of its hypotheses and its most fundamental prediction of 11 dimensions, serve to make an important point. It fails to pass the definition of science. String theory doesn’t  provide an intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is not only unverified, but appears to be unverifiable at its core.

It’s natural to ask, why has string theory gained such a following in the scientific community. First, modern theoretical physics is based on two incompatible theories, Einstein’s theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. As I mentioned in a previous post, some progress has been made to reconcile them, but no progress has been made with regard to a unified theory of gravity. This has caused serious issues in the scientific community and it is only human to seek a theory that offers to resolve the issue. However, in this case, we are taking a theory that is flawed and unverifiable to attempt to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have been widely successful as theories within their specific context. Next, numerous formidable physicists, like Stephen Hawking and Brian Greene, have written best selling books based on string theory. To the average popular science reader, their books are exciting and their standing in the scientific community suggests their books are science fact. How is it possible that Dr. Hawking and Dr. Greene are in such strong support of a questionable theory. I think this has to do with the mathematical elegance of M-theory. It is relatively easy to become enamored with the mathematical formulations and loose sight of the fundamentals. Unfortunately, I think this has happened. Dr. Hawking has gone as far as saying we no longer need a God since we now have M-theory. Opponents rightly ask, where did M-theory come from? I am not going to get into the religious aspects. I only point this out to delineate how deeply some of today’s most respected physicists have embraced string theory.

Where do I stand? Obviously, today’s theoretical physics is based on two incompatible theories, Einstein’s relativity and quantum mechanics. Although, both theories work extremely well in the specific contexts, relativity at the macro level and quantum mechanics at the micro or quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles), they do not come together to provide cogent theory of gravity. Even though string theory offers a speculative path to resolve the incompatibilities, at its core it appears to be pseudoscience. At best, it is a conjecture, which means it falls into the category of opinion.

I offer this sober warning to those that plan on making a career in science. Before you decide to become a string theorist and spend your career working to understand M-theory mathematics, be sure that you agree with the fundamental hypotheses and predictions of string theory. Don’t fall hopelessly in love with the elegant mathematics. Just because you can publish your theoretical string theory results in respectable scientific journals and participate in professional conferences doesn’t legitimize string theory. Much like a recovering alcoholic, science must admit there is a problem and not grasp at the current fad of string theory. It is better to admit we don’t have a solution than to forward what is likely the most legitimized pseudoscience of modern times, string theory.

A glowing sign with the word 'TRUTH' illuminated against a sunset backdrop.

Science Versus Truth

Categories, Physics, Universe Mysteries,

Many people, even some scientists, believe science equates with truth, especially with regard to the behavior of nature. Let’s examine whether this hypothesis is correct.

Modern physics is based on Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. Each theory models and predicts the behavior of reality within specified contexts. The theories of relativity work well in explaining and predicting the behavior of reality at the macro level (i.e., typically the level of our everyday world), even as objects approach the speed of light. Quantum mechanics works well in explaining and predicting the behavior of reality at the micro level, often termed the quantum level (i.e., the level of atoms and subatomic particles). However, the two theories are incompatible. For example, the theories of relativity describe the behavior of reality at the macro level with certainty, but are unable to  explain reality on the quantum level. Quantum mechanics is able to describe the behavior of reality at the micro level in terms of probabilities, but again is unable to provide an adequate model of how gravity works at the quantum level.

Physicists have been working to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics for over a century. To date, some progress has been made. For example, special relativity was merged with electromagnetism. This resulted in the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) or relativistic quantum field theory. QED is widely considered to be the most precise theory of natural phenomena ever developed. In the 1960s and 1970s, physicists attempted to unify the weak, the strong, and the gravitational forces. This resulted in another set of theories that merged the strong and weak forces called quantum chromodynamics (QCD) and quantum electroweak theory. However, no theory has successfully reconciled quantum mechanics and general relativity with regard to gravity. This incompatibility and the vastly different models of reality posed by the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics forces many in the scientific community to question their overall validity. In response, some physicists have forwarded a completely different model of reality based on string theory. In essence, string theory is a a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects of vibrating energy called strings. The most comprehensive string theory is termed M-theory, which stands for membrane theory. While many highly esteemed physicists, like Stephen Hawking, have championed M-theory, there is no experimental proof that it correctly models nature.

What does all this say about science and it relationship to truth? Science attempts to explain (i.e., model) and predict reality, but the best theories of modern physics are either inconsistent or not experimentally verified. In science, we have models, laws and mathematics that strive to explain and predict reality. However, our view of reality continues to evolve as our understanding of science evolves. For example, Newtonian mechanics works well for most problems in our everyday world, but fails to work when objects move close to the speed of light. Einstein’s theories of relativity evolved to solve relativistic problems (i.e., objects moving at speeds close to the speed of light). In principle, we can replace Newtonian mechanics with the theories of relativity, but reality has not changed. The only thing that has changed is our model of reality and the mathematical equations we use to predict nature’s behavior.

In conclusion, what can we say about science versus truth. If we define truth as the actual way nature behaves, then we must  admit that science does not equate with truth. Science is continually evolving to more closely model what nature is actually doing. The mathematics of science are continuously being refined to more closely predict how nature will behave. What is true in science? Scientific facts are true. For example, we can scientifically measure the gravitational attraction between two masses. However, scientific theories that explain this attraction may be wrong. For example, Newtonian mechanics explains gravity in terms of a gravitational field. General relativity, which superseded Newtonian mechanics, explains gravity as the distortion of space caused by a mass. Although the facts of science are indisputable, the theories used to explain them are not.