Open Your Eyes – Science Fact vs. Science Fiction

I love science-fiction because it explores possibile realities that are not our own.  It’s a mesemrizing genre to read and write in, and in many ways it’s the peak of human creativity. So is science. The trouble is that what is accepted as real science today is nothing else but the exploration of possible realities that are not our own. We currently live in a world of science fiction not science fact, and this is why.

Warning: the following blog post contains insulting scientific opinions and irresponsible behavior.

Also it’s pretty damn long, so if you’re just hopping in from the A to Z Challenge or aren’t really that interested in the topic, I won’t blame you if you hop along and check out these awesome blogs instead: Renee Miller, Tracy Brown, J.W. Alden, Kern Windwraith, Cindy Dwyer and more.

If you’re still here, you’re in for quite a ride. Enjoy!

The popular theory, that’s currently believed to hold the explanation of how the universe came to be and how it works, is the Big Bang Theory. What the BBT basically says is that at a specific point in time, all matter in the universe was condensed into a glob of subatomic particles, of infinite density and perfect homogenity. Then something stirred in the glob and an immense explosion occurred (or tiny disturbance, they’re not really sure), scattering particles everywhere and creating matter as we know it, the galaxies and everything.

Mind you that even though this theory has been so much advertised and cherished, (1) scientists don’t agree upon the exact time the Big Bang supposedly occurred, (2) experiments and observations made with ever-evolving technology refute the theory on a practical level, (3) absurd mathematical inventions were necessary to sustain the theory on the theoretical level, and (4) the theory is formed on the assumption that it’s gravity that rules the universe at a big scale (Astrophysics, the physics of celestial bodies) and that the universe is probably expanding, while electro-magnetism rules on the small scale (Particle Physics, the science of subatomic particles). Also, it’s impossible to unify these two scientific views into one all-encompassing theory of everything, the absolute holy grail of science, because they are based on two different things.

While modern scientists repeatedly correct (1) their calculations pertaining to the age of the Universe, from 7 billion years to the current hot-number of about 13 billion (I mean, come on, a 6 billion years difference is no biggy, right?), because (2) they keep discovering stars and galaxies that are older than the Universe is supposed to be, and farther than it could’ve expanded; and the measurements they take of close galaxies and phenomena don’t add up at all, so they have to (3) invent things to balance their equations. This is how they’ve come up with dark matter, wormholes, elastic space, black holes and so on.


The glorious construction that is the Big Bang Theory we know today is a growth of rather dubious nature, that has formed around the basic assumption that (4) gravity governs the heavens, and curves space and time. But the gravitational force is the weakest force known to man! It’s so tiny in fact, that the graivational attraction between two electrons is 10^42 times weaker than their electromagnetic repulsion. The gravitational force is so damn puny it only becomes relevant with humongous size, and even then a small amount of electromagnetism is enough to screw gravity over. Just think of a small magnet lifting up a coin. It fits in your palm, yet it beats the gravitational actraction of the whole goddamn planet!

Physics is fundamentally an experimental science. The process of scientific discovery follows very strict rules, and more or less goes something like this: you discover something experimentally, reproduce it consistently, deduct a logic from the results, predict something based on that logic and prove your prediction true experimentally, then get your theory and results verified by your peers to get the recognition, and only then the theory is accepted as valid and you become part of the nerd-gang. This is the way to go if you want to call it science.

Unfortunately, through this tedious process scientists become fairly attached to their theory-babies, much like writers get attached to their manuscripts. Any loving scientist will nourish his little theory, feed it and pet it and wipe the virtual poop away with his handkerchief. And he won’t take rejection easily.

The problem with this is that instead of sticking to the scientific process of discovery, where experiments rule and theory is just an explanation thereof, the dismayed scientist won’t discard the theory if the experiment refutes it. Instead, he will tweak the theory to fit the experiment, or even reinterpret the experiment entirely so that it sounds as though it would actually validate the theory. Much like never-ending editing of a crappy story until there’s nothing left of the original idea and the monstrously mutated thing is barely alive, instead of just moving the fuck on.

*In 2004, 33 renowned scientists even wrote an open letter to the scientific community, asking to reconsider the validity of the Big Bang Theory.*

The world of science isn’t a walk in the park, it’s a tough one-on-one in the schoolyard. Because mathematicians are the master number-slingers and have added themselves straight at the top of the cool-kid-list, physicists have gradually adopted their style to keep safe from bullying. Mathematics, however, is not an experimental science, and mathematical discoveries follow entirely different rules than scientific discoveries.

If you want to roll with the mathsters, you must basically either solve a monstruous equasion (read: problem), or come up with one. In order for your solution to be recognized, your calculations must be reproducible (i.e. other mathematicians must start from the same point you did, and arrive at the same conclusion), or, if you want your mega-riddle to get a place in the hall of fame, it must pose a mathematical problem that stuns geniuses into silence and promises to end global warming, world hunger and the mysterious appearance of pimples on geeky chins if it were ever solved. Nowhere in this process must your calculation be experimentally proven, or explain something that’s happening out there on your doorstep. It’s not required to have anything to do with tangible reality. The only thing it must do is make sense mathematically. It’s a very commanding, elegant and powerful discipline.

So on a damp summer night, when no one was looking, mathematics fucked physics in the eye and left it winking the wrong way. This is how we came to the mind-boggling, synapse-frying promotion of String Theory to the status of a scientific theory.

String Theory is the mathematical approach to the unification of Astrophysics and Particle Physics, or rather of general relativity (Einstein’s runt of the litter that describes gravity as a geometric property of space) and quantum mechanics (the mechanics of subatomic particles). In other words, String Theory is an approach to unify the Big Bang Theory, and its infinite array of abstract constructs designed to fill its potholes, with Particle Physics, and its extensive list of theoretical particles called the “particle zoo”.


What String Theory basically states is that all matter is made of itsy-bitsy-tiny-tipsy strings that vibrate one way or another, and form the different particles we know and love (and a couple hundred we can’t really grasp). And because strings are so damn sexy, String Theory was of course expanded to explain everything, nevermind the little cosmetic boo-boo that renders it implausible unless the universe has a bunch of extra dimensions (26 to be exact) that are super-duper-compacted into subatomic space. *cough*

To cut a long story short, from the vibration of all those strings came forth the membrane (or d-brane) and vibrated its way into the M-Theory (where M stands for “magical” or “mysterious”, I kid you not!), an extension of the String Theory which acknowledges “only” 11 dimensions. It comes with supersymmetry, supergravity and super-duper-science-bloopers you can’t even begin to imagine. Now ain’t that cool? All that vibration just makes you giddy, don’t it? But wait, it gets even better! M-Theory spawned Brane Cosmology which says that the reality plane in which we all exist is a virtual sheet of strings that vibrates through the universe! And there’s an infinite number of such sheets, or universes, realities.

*Brief reminder: we’re talking about official science here, the stuff that the public relies on to offer a sense of reality, not fiction with its many marvels. This isn’t Star Trek. Unfortunately. I miss Star Trek, at least it had “pew-pew” guns.*

String Theory is a humongous mathematical construct with a stupendous number of variables and no certainty whatsoever (random fact: did you know that the monster equation that describes String Theory has 10^520 solutions? That’s 10 to the power of 520 possible interpretations of it! A gadzillion possible interpretations of the theory of reality! *brain freeze*).


But String Theory isn’t the end, it’s just the beginning. Because, if you put 5 mathematicians in the same room you get 500 different opinions and maaaany tiny little mathematical babies, there isn’t just one String Theory, there are five of them. You got that right. There isn’t just one String Theory to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, there are five. And all of them are purely theoretical, as in they have no experimental proof, none at all, zilch, not even an ant’s fart of a bit of experimental relevance.

You would’ve expected someone to point a finger at this nonsense by now, right?

Well, they have, even from the start, in the 50′s, when Einstein’s cosmological constant and the Hubble redshift did the rumpy-pumpy behind the shed and the Big Bang Theory reared its head a bit later.

Actually the Big Bang Theory was the beer-soaked brain-child of some dudes named Gamow and Alpher, who published a paper on April 1st, 1948—on freakin April fool’s day!—that explained how the explosion that caused it all probably might’ve worked. It contained so much guessing and awesome coincidences it’s a wonder it wasn’t passed off as fiction. Come to speak of it, Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History Of Time, where the mechanics of black holes and wormholes were first explained, was in fact a work of fiction that was surprisingly passed off as hard-core scientific theory by the powers that be (a.k.a. mass-media and smart marketing). And you thought literary publishing was fucked!

But fear not, rational science is still alive out there. Cosmology that actually finds the common denominator in observations and experiments and then builds a theory from it.

“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.” (Nobel Prize winner, Hannes Alfven)

 

It was a surprising branch of physics that found a solution to the many riddles of cosmology, one that actually fits with every observation so far and has been making accurate predictions of cosmological phenomena that were all proven by technological advancement. It has also solved the unification problem between cosmology and quantum physics, and done so without mathematical gymnastics. On top of that, it’s not a theoretical construct, it’s practical, applied physics, and it’s already part of our everyday life, fitting reality like a glove and enabling us to evolve exponentially with every decade. It’s already out there, working for us every day.

It’s called Plasma Cosmology, and is a scientifically valid, experimentally proven and mathematically tested (but not very popular) theory, that explains both the physics and mechanics of stellar bodies and sub-atomic particles. It’s based on the study of plasma, the fourth state of matter (for all of you peeps who’ve skipped science class, the other states of matter are solid, liquid and gas), and comes from a place of practical applications and hands-on laboratory physics, that has brought you fluorescent lamps, plasma TVs, fusion energy studies, high power lasers, funny living room decorations, and much much more.


What Plasma Cosmology basically says is that the force ruling the universe on a grand scale isn’t gravity but electromagnetism. Which effectively obliterates the need for black holes, dark matter, wormholes, elastic space-time, gravity wells, and so on. It also denies the expansion of the universe, saying that the redshift of our neighbor galaxies (which was assumed to be a Doppler effect on an intergalactic scale) is in fact a property of the plasma making up those galaxies and their stars, and that it basically gives us information on their composition, temperature and age. Not their speed as they’re running away from us and our ugly faces.

Plasma Cosmology also explains how plasma filaments combine to form all the different shapes of galaxies observed thus far (something the Big Bang theory can not), how it influences cosmic radiation and the behavior of nebulae and quasars, that of stars, exoplanets, comets and asteroids, solar jets and even lightning!

*Random fact: did you know that our currently accepted “theory of reality” cannot really explain lightning (and related phenomena) right here on Earth?*

Plasma Cosmology explains everything that the Big Bang Theory still struggles to understand (I’m not even mentioning String Theory here since that one doesn’t explain anything), and does not require undetectable matter, invisible objects and unimaginable properties to make sense. There’s proof of the validity of this simple, elegant theory all over the place, and the repercussions are truly tremendous. It can even be reproduced in the lab—it can simulate scaled down, perfectly functional galaxies acting identically to their real-size counterparts!

*Hell yeah! I want the pink one with fluffy puffs of nebulae delivered to my house, please. Thanks.*


But, let’s not forget that the cool kids don’t like to admit they were wrong all along. They might be blind but they’re not stupid. They won’t admit that their Nobel Prizes were mistakes and that the billions of dollars in funding for their laboratories, telescopes and
expensive toys were a little bit over the top, and clearly to the detriment of all alternative studies. A bit egotistical, wouldn’t you agree? C’mon, people, be nice. Learn to share with each other. It benefits us all.

Plasma physicists and many other scientists who feel and know there’s something wrong with the Big Bang Theory, are working very hard to gather evidence and funding to climb the steps into public awareness, and ultimately, public scientific legitimacy. But they don’t have an easy task. The ground on which scientific theories tread is a battlefield, just like religion and politics, and ideologies are never quick to change. But I have faith that it won’t take much longer. We also used to believe that Earth was flat for quite a bunch of years before experimental facts punched the truth into us. Just like we still cling to the idea that the universe is governed by the weakest of natural forces and isn’t in agreement with its own subatomic self.

I am not a scientist, and the opinions expressed in this post don’t carry the weight of authority, but I am very passionate about theoretical physics and the mechanics of the universe, and I’m a firm believer in logic, practical applicability and common sense. And I’ll be damned if I shut up just because I don’t have the right college degree! If I can’t contribute to the victory of reason in science, at least I’ll do my best with the limited understanding I have and explore reasonable science in fiction. And sometimes, on this blog.

 

____________________

Books to read:
Albert Einstein – Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Stephen Hawking – A Brief History of Time
Lee Smolin – The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next
John Waller – Fact And Fiction In The History Of Scientific Discovery
David Peat – From Certainty To Uncertainty The Story Of Science And Ideas In The 20th Century
Ken Freeman & Geoff McNamara – In Search of Dark-Matter

B. R. Martin – Nuclear and Particle Physics – An Introduction
Jonathan Allday – Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang
Brian Greene – The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
Shalom Eliezer – The Fourth State of Matter
Wallace Thornhill & David Talbott - The Electric Universe
Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened
Donald E. Scott - The Electric Sky
Lyndon Ashmore - Big Bang Blasted
-and as many more as you can get your hands on-

Online articles on Plasma Cosmology:
A brief history of Plasma Cosmology

The Electric Universe – Articles
Introduction into Plasma Universe

Plasma Cosmology
Plasma Universe
Halton C. Arp
The Electric Universe Model
Infoplease – Plasma Cosmology
Thunderblogs

-Google is your friend-

Some videos I highly recommend:
Plasma Cosmology, a brief introduction
The Electric Skies – Thunderbolts of the Gods
Electrical Universe
Planetary Scars
Exploring the Plasma Universe

Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions
Einstein debunked by CERN — Nicola Tesla was right
And just any video here.
______________________________________________

This blog post is part of the A to Z Blogging Challenge, April 2012
Additional sources are added as history goes on.

About Vero

Writer of science-fiction thrillers, fluent in German and sarcasm.
I'm always learning all kinds of crazy things, then blog about them and plant them into your mind, where they have tiny little idea babies, and we all play together! Weee!
-- @VeronicaSicoe

Comments

  1. Okay you lost me about 2/3 of the way through – will have to come back when I have a few more minutes, but I must say this line is genius:

    So on a damp summer night, when no one was looking, mathematics fucked physics in the eye and left it winking the wrong way.

  2. J.W. Alden says:

    I seriously don’t even know where to begin to compliment you on this one. Too much rad in one block of text. Excellent breakdown of the state of scientific affairs (and the unfortunate politics that often keep things static). It got me pumped to read more about Plasma Cosmology. I’ve done some reading on it, but nowhere near as much as I probably should.

    Since you’ve obviously done way more homework on the subject than me, what do you think about the cosmic background microwave radiation that Big Bang proponents cling to as predictive confirmation? Has this been addressed at all in PC? I seem to remember some critics saying it hadn’t been, but as I said, I’m not as well read on the subject as I should be.

    And I agree with Jaye, that’s got to be the best description of String Theory I’ve ever read. I don’t know when, and I don’t know to whom, but I’m quoting you on that one first chance I get. :P

    Awesome, awesome post!

  3. Cindy Dwyer says:

    I don’t always get ping backs when someone links to me, not sure why. But it lead to a wonderful surprise when I read your post and saw myself referenced! Thank you.

    I think I’ve told you this before, but I love how you take complicated scientific theories and portray them in such a straightforward, understandable and enjoyable way. Your intelligence and love for learning shine through, regardless of what degrees you hold.

    • Vero says:

      Thank you Cindy! I enjoy your blog very much, it’s like a breath of fresh air. Thanks for coming over and commenting. :)

  4. MG says:

    In fact, Wal Thornhill *does* say that gravity rules the roost within the solar system, generally speaking. We can fly probes to other planets with little problem. As Hannes Alfvén said “gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.”

    It’s a common misconception that Plasma Cosmology (PC) says that gravity doesn’t exist or that in some manner electrostatics “replaces” gravity. It does not, in gravitational systems. That is those systems where the electrical force has been “neutralized” (most charged particles are bound up in approximately neutral atoms or the plasma is quasi-neutral).

    However, in “space” (the cosmos) most of what we see is in the plasma state and is generally NOT neutral (though overall it may be quasi-neutral, which isn’t the same thing since electric field can and often do exist in quasi-neutral environments). Where electric fields can exist, currents can be driven and magnetic fields generated. Plasma responds strongly to electromagnetic forcing (via electric & magnetic fields).

    Anywho, just thought I’d throw that out there.

    Much of the structure of the observable universe seems to make sense in light of these facts. Such as why the filamentary molecular cloud in Orion is encircled by magnetic fields (hint: the “right hand rule” says if we know the behavior of magnetic fields we can make a pretty good educated guess about the currents driving them!)…

  5. MG says:

    Also, if one wants to understand gravity, one might take a look at this prospective paper for one “possibility” of unifying the gravitational force with the electromagnetic force:

    http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Can-J-Phys-V70-p330-340%281992%29.pdf

    Right in line with Thornhill’s thoughts on gravity as a second-order effect of electric dipoles and Sansbury’s thoughts on the structure of heretofore ‘fundamental’ particles (electrons, protons, etc.)…

    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
    http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s

    Best,
    ~MG

  6. MG says:

    P.S. Don’t forget the, umm, role of the Revelations of Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre in the, uhh, Genesis of the Big Bang theory, trying to reconcile astronomy/science with Biblical creation, ex nihilo. Y’know, one of those things you CAN’T HAVE in science (creation from nothing / destruction to nothing)…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

    But, I digress… (I know, I know, no ad hominem circumstantial. But dang if he doesn’t just make it *so* EASY!)

    ~MG

    • Vero says:

      Hehe, thanks for the links! Georges Lemaître and his “brilliant solution” of a “Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation” (a.k.a. The Big Bang) is such a fun lad, isn’t he? I didn’t even take him into consideration in my post due to his… uhm… impartial scientific precision. ;)

      • MG says:

        Well, you can’t say he wasn’t a scientist, as he did do quite a bit of note. But, you also can’t entirely say he was impartial / unbiased, either…

        So, it is what it is, I guess? ;)

        ~MG

  7. Oh my freaking god, Vero, this post is the most happy-making thing I’ve come across for months! You are amazing! AMAZING! I read every last fascinating word, and will be checking out some of the links you’ve given for further reading and viewing.

    I wasn’t aware of how flimsy the evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory is, and that makes me feel like a bit of a patsy, almost like someone managed to sell me on creationism or something. How is it possible a discipline that should be rigorously checking and re-checking itself has been able to get away with this for so long? Well, I guess you’ve explained how, really: the great whacks of reputations and moolah on the line are a complete disincentive to critical thinking in this case, aren’t they?

    Huh. So much for scientific method.

    Awesome, awesome post.

    • Vero says:

      Thank you so much, Kern! I’m really glad you liked it (*does little happy dance*) and that I was able to reveal the ridiculous situation we’re stuck in with cosmology in an understandable way. I hope you’ll find some of the resources interesting. :)

  8. Francene says:

    Great post. If I understand your message, trying to find the answer through science is like our grasp of God. http://veronicasicoe.dyndns.org:1001/wordpress/2012/04/science-fact-vs-science-fiction/#more-722

  9. Francene says:

    Funny. I sent your link to Cindy, not knowing she’d replied. My second blunder was to past your own site address into the end of my message. It should be:

    http://francene-wordstitcher.blogspot.com.

    I guess I wouldn’t be scientist material.

  10. Tracy Brown says:

    I WAS going to type: Fascinating, Captain.

    But instead I’ll tell you what REALLY went through my head: Good GAWD, woman. How big IS your f-ing brain? Maybe I should just go amuse myself in the corner with this shiny, red ball.
    ;) Seriously though, what an incredible post. I won’t pretend that I’m going to retain the info (see shiny, red ball reference above), but I’ve now I can say I’ve heard of Plasma Cosmology. (Brain learn new stuff!)

    So really, Vero, where do you find the time to chase down all your interests, hobbies, and responsibilities? I mean, unless you’ve found a way to stop time, I’m guessing you’re working with the same 24 hours as the rest of us!

    PS: thanks for the link in this post! You rule. :)

    • Vero says:

      You made me spurt soda over my desk, I laughed so hard. Bad Tracy, bad, give me back my ball! :D

      Thank you for the appreciation, it means a lot to me! I’m not doing anything suspicious with my time, except that I can’t seem to stand still. I just hope I won’t run into random walls and fall down wells in the process, because I really only want to explore. :)

      Thank you for your frequent comments, it’s great to have you here time and again!

  11. “Just like we still cling to the idea that the universe is governed by the weakest of natural forces and isn’t in agreement with its own subatomic self.”
    Well, I’m quite often not in agreement with my sub-atomic self, so why should the greater universe be any different? Seriously, though, I thought this was a brilliant argument. It’s a rare discussion of theoretical physics that makes me laugh out-loud!

    • Vero says:

      Thank you very much, Cassandra! I’m glad you found it entertaining, and indeed, disagreement with oneself makes for a great source of inspiration to write conflicts, doesn’t it? ;)

  12. Courtney says:

    I’m pimping you big on twitter. You are my new favorite person. I’m working on my own Sci-fi thriller, and have bumped into most of the concepts you cover here. I make furious notes and watch every program on the Discovery channel on these topics trying to get a plot idea to work. Your summation on why they each individually suck as a peg to hang your plot hat on are spot on! I’m going to make myself comfy this weekend and see if I can read every single thing you’ve ever written on this blog.
    You are also the first blog I will have ever subscribed to.
    Thanks!

    • Vero says:

      Wow. Thank you very much for your appreciation, Courtney!

      I’m glad you found the post useful, and I particularly like that you research the sh*t out of scientific theories to make your storyworld as consistent as possible. That’s a great work attitude and this kind of inquisitiveness will come in handy in everything you write.

      Thank you for subscribing and commenting, and I wish you great success with your sci-fi thriller — and have fun reading! :)

  13. Ken Barclay says:

    Your article was posted in April. I happened upon it in August. My first reaction, “Damn! I was going to write that.” Second reaction, “I couldn’t have equaled that in a dozen years.”

    My third reaction was, “I’ve got to get this lady’s books.” But … I turned to Amazon.com in vain. None listed.

    How long now, until I should look again for a book by you? In the meantime, thanks for the encouragement I find in many of your other articles.

    • Vero says:

      Wow, thanks for the thumbs up, Ken! It really made my day. :)

      My debut novel’s still in the works, but I’m definitely going to keep my blog updated regarding its progress as it squirms and fights through the birth canal to publication. Thanks a lot for your interest, and I hope you’ll stick around.

  14. Elisa Nuckle says:

    Oh my gosh. I don’t even know on how many levels this has sparked my curiosity of how the universe works. I really, really love this, and how you explained it. It’s dense but not in the can I go to sleep now kind of way, if that makes sense.

    You really make me want to go research all of this and learn more about the application of all this information to science fiction. In short: you inspired me.

    Keep it up! I love your articles. :D

    • Vero says:

      Science is in a constant flux, and the best way to keep up and keep a sense of wonder intact, is to be enthusiastic and critical at the same time.

      I’m very glad I could spark your curiosity about cosmology, and I hope you’ll find many good questions to ask as you venture deeper into it! :D

      Thanks a lot for the encouragement, Elisa!

  15. Betty says:

    Hello! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any problems with hackers?
    My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing many months of hard work due to no back up.
    Do you have any methods to protect against hackers?
    > Betty recently posted Betty

  16. nail fungus says:

    Hi there! This post could not be written any better! Reading through this
    post reminds me of my old room mate! He always kept chatting
    about this. I will forward this page to him.
    Fairly certain he will have a good read. Thank you for sharing!
    > nail fungus recently posted nail fungus

Trackbacks

  1. [...] fair share of it, though I read more theoretical physics than hard sci-fi. But really, that line is reeeally blurred sometimes. I don’t write hard science-fiction however, and since my novel falls over the fence into the [...]

  2. [...] an insightful criticism of large chunks of contemporary physics we often take for [...]

Speak Your Mind

*

Show a link to my latest blog post