Freedom of Science

I decided to draft proposals that I may or may not send to institutions that may or may not fund Freedom of Science blog. Here’s the first one written to Perimeter Institute. Since Perimeter Institute is interested in foundational issues I have emphasized a foundational slant in this proposal.

Perimeter Institute was founded by Mike Lazaridis who manufactures and sells BlackBerrys. The original idea was a good one: Establish a research center independent of universities to be free of stifling rules of academic scholasticism in order to study foundational questions. The problem is that what makes scholasticism scholasticism are the doctors themselves not the brick and mortar of universities. Transporting the usual suspects of crimes against science from one institution to another will make no difference in their behavior.

And Doctors of Philosophy do not have freedom to study fundamentals. They are bound by physics doctrine. Therefore to accomplish its mission of foundational research Perimeter Institute must fund truly independent amateur blogs such as Freedom of Science.

1. State of research today

The purpose of Freedom of Science is to transfer scientific authority now enjoyed by Doctors of Philosophy to the people. The source of Doctors’ scientific authority is a deity called Newton. The goal is to transfer scientific authority from this deity to humanity. This will be a first in history.

2. Fundamental principle of science

The most fundamental foundational principle is that there is no absolute fundament that can be known by scientific investigations. Religion investigates absolute fundamentals. Science does not. Science investigates generalities not fundamentals.

Science is distinguished from religion by its inability to give absolute answers. The acceptance of the principle of no fundament is the first step towards becoming a scientist. I invite every physicist to give up his or her doctoral authority and accept the fundamental principle of science and become a scientist. As long as they claim to answer absolute foundational questions physicists will remain religious priests no matter where they work.

3. Authority is foundational

Where scientific authority resides is the most important foundational issue. Foundational questions cannot be answered as long as scientific authority resides in a deity and its terrestrial agents the professional doctors.

4. Questioning is foundational

The mission of the Perimeter Institute is to study foundational questions. This can be done by questioning physics dogmas. Instead of questioning physics dogmas physicists ask old scholastic questions and claim to answer them with scientific answers that they find in the physics code. Their answers turn out to be definitions presented as doctrines, i.e., a new dogma to be negotiated into the existing physics code.

Physicists use their doctoral authority and define old scholastic problems as scientific problems. Physicists speculate about these problems and market their speculations as absolute truths. They pose a theoretical question and market it as the absolute foundational question.

5. Force is foundational

The foundational issue that we discuss the most at Freedom of Science is the role of the Newtonian force in physics. Unlike physicists who accept force as their faith and never question its existence we do question the Newtonian force.

Physicists’ understanding of force is defined by their Newtonian indoctrination they call physics education. As the result of their unquestioning belief in the Newtonian dogma physicists mistake Newton’s definition for a proportionality.

It appears that F=1/RR is at the foundation of physics. This is only apparently so. F=1/RR is not in the foundation of physics it is merely an inscription carved on the ceremonial granite cornerstone of the edifice of physics:

Thus defined Newton: F=1/RR.

If you erase this legend on the cornerstone the edifice will not come tumbling down. F=1/RR is not in the foundation of physics. But why did I say F=1/RR was fundamental? Have I misspoken? No. Its fundamentalness results from physicists’ mistake of believing that Newton’s definition F=1/RR is a proportionality. Physicists believe that the placeholder F is a magnitude.

Let me explain. Physicists are indoctrinated as part of their professional education that F=1/RR is a proportionality. They think that if R is increased F changes accordingly. As an analogy to force physicists tell you about the law for areas. You see how the area is quadrupled when the distance R from the origin is doubled. Yes. So what?

The area rule has nothing to do with Force=1/RR. Why? Because Area=1/RR is a true proportionality. A and R are both measurable lengths. Neither A nor R are placeholders. F in F=1/RR is a placeholder. If you double R, F does not diminish quadruple-fold. A placeholder is not a magnitude. When will physicists realize this fact?

The true proportionality is R/TT=1/RR. There is R on both sides. Or equivalently, RRR=TT. This is an R^1.5 rule. F=1/RR makes no sense on its own.

Physicists mistook Newton’s definition F=1/RR to be a proportionality and this mistake made F=1/RR a foundational issue.

7. Singularity at R=0

Physicists look at F=1/RR and panic:

Oh my God! There is a singularity at R=0. We must eliminate this singularity to save the universe! What to do? What to do? Quick! Let’s blur R and call it Quantum Mechanics.

Of course, I am simplifying for effect. In reality it took physicists over half a century to negotiate the blur as the official elimination of the supposed singularity.

Next generation of physicists were not happy with this solution. The elder generation prematurely closed a rich academic mine still yielding raw material for fine foundational papers.

“Wait a minute” the younger physicists said, “this is not over yet. Your Quantum Mechanics is full of philosophical holes. We can do better than blurring the singularity. Let’s eliminate this annoying singularity at R=0 by defining your blur to be a string. What you thought was a blur is in reality an oscillating string.”

Ingenious. Such an elegant simple foundational solution. It is so simple that it has 10^7777777 solutions and it explains everything in this universe and then the surplus solutions are used to explain all other universes and there are still solutions left and those create their own new multiverses to explain. All these explaining to do makes wonderful careers. Physicists call this way of reckless speculating beautiful and elegant science.

8. Elimination of singularity

What string physicists do with the help of ugly purple mathematical symbolism we can do with grade school math. Here’s the simplest way to eliminate the troubling singularity at R=0.

First write the proportionality:

R/TT=1/RR

Now carefully apply grade school algebra making sure you don’t blur any term — move your terms slowly — to get

RRR=TT

Here it is. At R=0 we have T=0.

Singularity disappeared. Universe saved!

In order to obey Newton’s sacred authority physicists created two giant scholastic edifices of grotesque proportions.

Singularity at R=0 disappears when physicists’ religious faith in Newton’s authority is eliminated.

Suddenly, Quantum Mechanics and String Theory are mechanics without a cause to exist. What a shame. Fortunately physics is full of singularities and physicists can choose another one to keep themselves busy.

9. Theoretical is not foundational

Perimeter Institute looks like a really interesting place. Lucky people who work there. They don’t have to teach. No administrative chores. Everyone gets a Blackberry. All they have to do is to concentrate on foundational issues.

The problem is that what they are doing is not foundational. It is the usual theoretical stuff. Are you surprised that physicists defined their theoretical speculations to be foundational investigations?

10. What is foundational?

Just like any other concept in physics, the word foundational is a pun and a pun means whatever physicists say it means.

I do not agree with the definition of foundation as understood by the Perimeter Institute. Popular theories such as Quantum Field Theory and String Theory and their variations are not fundamental investigations. They are not fundamental, they are theoretical hermeneutics spawned by the physics code.

Physics theories are not fundamental. How can they be? If you define string to be your fundamental unit you will be imposing on Nature your own defined unit as foundation. This is the methods of politics. Politicians define a unit and enforce it as the absolute truth.

Physicists too define a unit and market it to other doctors as a fundamental law of physics. If a physicist succeeds in convincing his colleagues then his definition is encoded as law under his name and acquires legal status.

A theory such as QFT is at least twice removed from foundations. It proposes to represent nature by using quantum theory conventions with field theory conventions. This is a mashup of physics code. Nothing more.

11. Freedom of Science is about foundations

On the other hand, questioning dogmas and labels of physics is foundational work.

Questioning authority is foundational work. Using doctoral authority to legislate nature is political work.

Physicists define new labels to obscure foundations. At Freedom of Science we strive to eliminate physicists’ labels to get closer to the concepts they hide.

Can you reach the foundation by adding new labels? No. You would obscure foundations with your labels. Would people who get paid by how many words they publish have an incentive to remove superfluous labels?

By supporting the Freedom of Science blog Perimeter Institute would be contributing to the progress of true foundational work.

Thank you for reading.

###

ShareThis