 |
"Long
before it's in the papers"
August 03, 2010
RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE
Paper takes swipe at bedrock law of physics
Oct. 14, 2006
Special to World Science
A new paper by a self-described hobby physicist challenges what may be the bedrock
law of nature. And while skeptics are rolling their eyes, the study has appeared in a professional journal with the apparent
consent of leading
physicists.
A timeline showing
estimated cosmic expansion since the Big Bang. Right after
that event, a
superheated, accelerating expansion is believed to have taken place. It
later slowed down. In more recent times, the speedup mysteriously
resumed. The
tilted gray disk at approximately the middle of the figure represents the
present. (Courtesy Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory).
The principle under dispute,
central to physics for at least two centuries, is called the law of conservation of energy.
It states that nothing can be created or destroyed: you can’t get something from nothing, or vice-versa, though converting
substances between diverse forms is very possible.
But the paper claims new stuff may be formed constantly, in one special
setting: within black holes or similar objects. The idea,
the author adds, is testable and would resolve several mysteries, including why the universe is expanding ever faster.
“Not very plausible,” though not impossible, was how theoretical physicist Gary Gibbons
of the University of Cambridge, U.K., rated the proposal.
Cosmologist Andrei Linde of Stanford University in Stanford, Calif., declared the paper nonsense nine minutes after
being emailed a copy. At “first glance,” he wrote back, it “does not make any sense.”
But asked to specify its errors, he declined. The overriding problem, he wrote, was not mistakes, but
an overall amateurishness. “Sorry for being so negative,” but the study is “not even wrong,” he
wrote—quoting a stinging phrase scientists sometimes use to
dismiss absurd findings.
Yet a note published with the paper, in the journal New Astronomy this month, indicated it had successfully passed the scrutiny of at
least one eminently qualified scholar: co-editor Joseph Silk, head of the University of Oxford, U.K., astrophysics department.
That “does make one wonder more” about the work, volunteered Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the acknowledged discoverers of the accelerated cosmic expansion. He declined to comment more on the paper, though, saying it wasn’t exactly in his field. Silk also declined.
As standard practice dictates, New Astronomy accepted the paper only after an editor—Silk—reviewed it in consultation with an anonymous outside expert, the author said.
Most scientists say a study’s acceptance for publication in a “peer-reviewed” research journal, as
New Astronomy is, is a mark that it constitutes serious science. This, of course, doesn’t at all prove a study correct. Moreover, not all peer-reviewed journals command equal respect among scientists,
and New Astronomy isn’t considered the cream of the
crop. Thomson Scientific, a Philadelphia-based organization, rated
it as the 16th most influential of 43 astronomy and astrophysics journals
worldwide publishing new research last year.
Its editorial board includes, alongside Silk, researchers with the University of Cambridge, Harvard University and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
For the author, Gregor Bayer of Cedar Hill, Texas, the publication was a breakthrough. “It has been a very hard struggle for me to get anything published,” he wrote in an email, though he had another paper
in print earlier this year. “Fortunately, some good people are beginning to take me seriously.”
Bayer attributed his troubles to the fact that he doesn’t work for any scientific institution, so other researchers are reluctant to back his theories. “I have a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago,”
from 1972, he wrote; “but I left the field many years ago. As a career, physics is hell: as a hobby, it is heaven. Ideas come easily to me now.”
Bayer’s paper on energy conservation considers black holes, stupendously
dense celestial bodies that pack so much weight into so little space that their gravity overpowers everything nearby, including light rays. Conditions in black holes are thought to mimic in some ways those prevailing at the origin of the universe.
Then, scientists believe, all matter was packed into a point; this then exploded in a “Big Bang,” spawning the cosmos.
If a black hole had an opposite, it would be what physicists call vacuum. In plain
terms, that means nothingness, though this word is misleading because some minimal level of activity has been found to unfold even in
the emptiest space.
Vacuum is ubiquitous. Even in solid objects, there is plenty of
room for vacuum, between and inside the atoms. In a black hole, vacuum could also conceivably find lodgings. But there, the cramping might become severe even for a guest of such modest demands—forcing the vacuum, in Bayer’s view, to lead a precarious existence.
Within black holes or similar objects, he argues, extreme conditions may inject “instability” into the vacuum, converting parts of
it into non-vacuum, or matter. “Matter creation can be said to arise from some new particle interaction which violates energy conservation,” he wrote in an email.
Gibbons is unconvinced. Bayer fails to clarify “the dynamics behind” the process, he wrote, adding that standard particle physics already offers a well-supported account of how mass arises, called the Higgs mechanism.
Bayer argued that some vagueness in his account is inevitable, because researchers are still “trying to figure out what the vacuum really is.”
But he claims matter creation could explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, which Perlmutter and others identified in the late 1990s. Why the speedup occurs is one of the most vexing scientific mysteries of the past decade. Astronomers provisionally attribute it to a yet-to-be-identified “dark energy,” whose nature remains unknown.
Bayer’s explanation of this links matter creation to another concept, pressure, a measure of how much a given blob of matter is “squeezed” by what’s around it. It’s why your head hurts if you dive deeply. Negative pressure is also conceivable—your head being pulled apart—though we never experience
this on Earth.
A simplified view is that positive pressure is an air hose blowing outward; negative pressure, a vacuum cleaner sucking inward.
Einstein determined that an object’s gravity depends not just on its mass, as was known before, but its pressure. If an object has enough negative pressure, its gravity can also become negative, and hence repulsive rather than attractive.
Bayer argued that matter creation is associated with repulsive gravity because it’s also linked to negative pressure. “The flow of energy into the Universe can be described as being caused by an external pressure from the vacuum,” he wrote in an email. “Viewed from inside the Universe, the positive external pressure looks like a negative internal pressure.”
Bringing back the air-hose analogy, imagine an invisible hose blowing air outward and into the mouth of a second tube. That second pipe would appear as though it were sucking in air—negative pressure.
Negative pressure within legions of black holes would create a gravitational repulsion that permeates the cosmos and pushes it outward relentlessly, Bayer claims. “While matter is being created, there is a gravitational repulsion associated with the energy flow. When the flow stops, only the ordinary gravitational attraction of the created mass remains.” All newly minted mass would reside permanently in its home black hole.
Matter creation would equate to energy creation because,
as Einstein found with the famed equation
E=mc2,
matter and energy are two forms of the same thing.
Whatever you call it, Bayer said the creation process could explain
not only the dark energy puzzle but an array of others: the identity of the “dark matter” that makes up five-sixths of the material in the cosmos, but is unseen; why certain cosmic rays hit Earth with otherwise inexplicably high energies; and what caused an “inflation” believed to have made the universe grow stupendously
big within a fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
Cosmologists believe accelerated swelling of the cosmos occurred during two separate periods: during the inflation epoch, and more recently. Bayer says that’s because both episodes witnessed matter creation. The speedup stopped in between, he argues, because initial formation of the universe was over, but black holes weren’t formed yet.
Yet Linde, a founder of the inflation theory, disagrees.
Bayer said his theory of energy non-conservation could be tested using particle accelerators, which bash subatomic particles together to help see what they’re made of. Normally, conservation of energy is used to calculate properties of the particles flying out of the bang-up. But the law is assumed, rather than proven, in these experiments, Bayer argued. “A serious test of energy conservation in high-energy collisions will require careful analysis of many complex multi-particle events,”
he wrote in his paper. This would be hard, he added, but
it can be done.
* * *
Send us a comment on this story, or send it to a friend
Homepage image: A device known as a bubble chamber, attached to a particle accelerator, records the paths of subatomic particles. Their properties can be deduced from these paths. (Courtesy Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory)
|
||||
|
A scientific journal has published a paper by a self-described hobby physicist challenging what may be the bedrock principle of modern physics. Called the law of conservation of energy, it proclaims nothing can be created or destroyed. You can’t get something from nothing, and vice-versa—though converting stuff into different forms is quite possible. But the paper’s author said new stuff may be created constantly, within black holes or similar objects. The notion, he adds, is testable and would explain several unsolved mysteries, including why the universe is expanding ever faster. The proposal has drawn criticism. Gary Gibbons, a theoretical physicist at the University of Cambridge, U.K., wrote an an email calling the theory “not very plausible,” nor sufficiently detailed, though not impossible. Cosmologist Andrei Linde of Stanford University in Cambridge, Mass., went further, declaring the paper nonsense nine minutes after being sent a copy by email. At “first glance,” he wrote back, it “does not make any sense.” But asked to specify its errors, he declined to do so. The overriding issue, he wrote, is that it’s simply amateurish overall, not up to the expertise demanded of professional research reports. “I believe that, as we sometimes say, ‘he is not even wrong.’” Yet a note published with the paper, in the journal New Astronomy, indicated it had successfully passed the scrutiny of a man of sterling credentials: co-editor Joseph Silk, head of the University of Oxford, U.K., astrophysics department. That “does make one wonder more” about it, wrote Saul Perlmutter of the University of California, Berkeley, whom astronomers credit with co-discovering the accelerated cosmic expansion. He declined to say more on the paper, saying it wasn’t exactly in his field. Silk also declined. The research appears in this month’s issue of the journal. As standard practice dictates, New Astronomy accepted the paper only after an editor—Silk—reviewed it in consultation with an anonymous outside expert, the author said. Most scientists say a study’s acceptance for publication in a “peer-reviewed” research journal of this type is a mark that it constitutes serious science. This, of course, doesn’t at all prove the study correct. Moreover, not all peer-reviewed journals command equal respect among scientists. Thomson Scientific, a Philadelphia-based organization, rated New Astronomy as the 16th most influential of 43 astronomy and astrophysics journals publishing new research last year. For the author, Gregor Bayer of Cedar Hill, Texas, the publication was a breakthrough. “It has been a very hard struggle for me to get anything published,” he wrote in an email. “Fortunately, some good people are beginning to take me seriously.” Bayer attributed his troubles to the fact that he has no tie to an academic institution, so other researchers are reluctant to back his theories. “I have a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Chicago,” he wrote, “but I left the field many years ago. As a career, physics is hell: as a hobby, it is heaven. Ideas come easily to me now.” Bayer’s paper focuses on black holes, stupendously compact cosmic objects that pack such weight into so little space that their gravity drags in everything nearby, including light rays. Conditions in black holes are thought to mimic in some ways those at the origin of the universe. Then, all matter was packed into a point which exploded in a “Big Bang,” scientists believe, spawning the cosmos. If a black hole had an opposite, it would be what physicists call vacuum. In plain language, that means nothingness, though this word is misleading because some minimal level of activity has been found to to go on even in vacuum. Vacuum is ubiquitous. Even in solid objects, there is plenty of space for vacuum, between and inside the atoms. In a black hole, vacuum could also conceivably find lodgings. But there, the cramping might become severe even for a guest with such modest demands, forcing the vacuum, in Bayer’s view, to lead a precarious existence. Within black holes or similar objects, he argues, extreme conditions may inject “instability” into the vacuum, which could convert parts of the vacuum into non-vacuum, or matter. “Matter creation can be said to arise from some new particle interaction which violates energy conservation,” he wrote in an email. Gibbons is unconvinced: Bayer fails to clarify “the dynamics behind” the process, he wrote, adding that standard particle physics already offers a well-supported account of how mass arises, called the Higgs mechanism. But Bayer argued that vagueness is unavoidable because “at this stage of the game, we are just trying to figure out what the vacuum really is.” Bayer claims matter creation could explain an accelerating expansion of the universe, which Perlmutter and others identified in the late 1990s. Why the speedup occurs is one of the most vexing scientific mysteries of the past decade. Astronomers provisionally attribute it to a yet-to-be-identified “dark energy,” whose nature remains unknown. Bayer’s explanation of the acceleration links matter creation to another concept, pressure, a measure of how much a given blob of matter is “squeezed” by what’s around it. It’s why your head hurts if you dive too deeply. Negative pressure is also conceivable—your head being pulled apart by the surroundings—though we never experience it on Earth. A simplified view is that positive pressure is an air hose blowing outward; negative pressure, a vacuum cleaner sucking inward. Einstein determined that an object’s gravity depends not just on its mass, as was known before, but its pressure. If an object has enough negative pressure, its gravity can also become negative, and hence repulsive rather than attractive. Bayer argued that matter creation is associated with repulsive gravity because it’s also linked to negative pressure. “The flow of energy into the Universe can be described as being caused by an external pressure from the vacuum,” he wrote in an email. “Viewed from inside the Universe, the positive external pressure looks like a negative internal pressure.” Bringing back the air-hose analogy, imagine an invisible blowing hose air outward, and into the mouth of a second tube. That second pipe would appear as though it were sucking in air—negative pressure. Negative pressure within legions of black holes would create a gravitational repulsion that permeates the cosmos and makes it expand, Bayer claims. “While matter is being created, there is a gravitational repulsion associated with the energy flow. When the flow stops, only the ordinary gravitational attraction of the created mass remains.” All newly minted mass would reside permanently in its home black hole. And matter creation should equate to energy creation because—as Einstein found with the famed equation E=mc2—matter and energy are two forms of the same thing. Either way, Bayer said the process could solve not only the dark energy puzzle but an array of others: the identity of the “dark matter” that makes up five-sixths of the material in the cosmos, but has never been seen; why certain cosmic rays hit Earth with otherwise inexplicably high energies; what caused an “inflation” believed to have made the universe grow stupendously in size within a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Cosmologists believe accelerated swelling of the cosmos occurred during two separate periods: during the inflation epoch, and more recently. Bayer said that’s because both episodes witnessed matter creation. The acceleration stopped in between, he argues, because initial formation of the universe was over, but black holes weren’t formed yet. Yet Linde, a founder of the inflation theory, disagrees. Bayer said his theory that energy isn’t conserved could be tested using particle accelerators, used to smash subatomic particles into each other to see what’s they’re made of. Normally, conservation of energy is used to calculate properties of the particles flying out of the bang-up. But the law is assumed, rather than proven, in these experiments, Bayer argued. “A serious test of energy conservation in high-energy collisions will require careful analysis of many complex multi-particle events,” he wrote in his paper.