Democracy in Science
Zbigniew Andrzej Nowacki
Lodz, Poland, July 2013
In April 2009, in the journal "Nature" there was published a letter, signed by 47 authors, reporting an unexpected excess of positrons (i.e., antielectrons) in cosmic rays. The ratio of the number of positrons to that of electrons should decrease with increasing energy, while the measurements showed that it increased. It was as strange as if suddenly it turned out that Earth has more millionaires than the poor.
In 2011-2012, these results were confirmed by a larger team of 600 researchers who made more accurate measurements for even higher energies. The excess of positrons has become an undeniable fact that physicists have to, of course, somehow clarify in interviews with the press. How do they it? They have decided to explain the unknown with the unknown, and they (maybe not all, but the vast majority, including the authors of the article in "Nature") maintain that the positron excess is caused by the annihilation (due to mutual collisions) of dark matter particles.
I would like to do something to help my fellow physicists. There is a problem here, because due to hurt ambitions of some people (regretting that they have not hit upon it) I must not publish articles in scientific journals. In this situation, I have decided to change my profession and start writing novels. In this essay, as a writer, I would like to give physicists a clue.
Hailing from hell, a character from Bulgakov's novel "The Master and Margarita" said:
Manuscripts don't burn.
On the other hand, I say:
Dark matter doesn't annihilate.
Of course, I make such a claim because, in contrast to physicists, I know exactly what is dark matter (and, to tell the truth, no one else on Earth will know that until I have said). However, it can also be explained in a straightforward manner. If dark matter annihilated, in this process not only would arise electron-like particles, but also photons (for non-experts, photons are basically the same as light). And even if there were created only electrons and positrons, at least some of them would annihilate mutually giving photons again, and we would have to see the light. Briefly speaking, if dark matter annihilated, it would not be dark.
So what causes the excess of positrons? Well, the reason is AGA, the most extraordinary phenomenon known in physics. (The theory of AGA predicts that the positron fraction should increase and then fall beyond a certain "cutoff" energy, which has been recently confirmed experimentally.) I am sorry, so far it is known only to the author of this essay. Unfortunately, in science there is no democracy; ideas formulated ad hoc (without a correct theory) by most people are usually cakes that have failed to rise properly. In particular, this often happens in physics (and related fields such as astronomy or climatology). This is due to the fact that physics is a very difficult (perhaps the most difficult) branch of science. Its practice requires not only the ability of logical thinking, but also a great deal of imagination.
Lodz, Poland, August 2013
Consider one more example. Long, long ago, most people claimed that the Earth is flat. Few individuals talking something about a sphere were ridiculed by asking them why they had not slid down from the sphere yet. There was even a theory of Aristotle explaining that all things have a natural tendency to fall down.
Today we are faced with an analogous situation. The majority of climate researchers maintain that the warming of the Earth has been caused by human activity. (I assume that no measurement error has been made and this warming actually occurs.) This is a trivial and naive solution, similar to that of the flat Earth. After all, most Polish tradeswomen have been arguing the same for a long time.
There is also, of course, a scientific justification for this view. It is claimed that one does not see any other cause of global warming. This is a basic premise (like falling down) thanks to which it is possible to ridicule opponents. Thus I would like to say at this point: AGA is not visible, but can deliver to Earth an enormous amount of energy with intensity being able to change over time (in extreme cases from second to second). Furthermore, the AGA intensity may depend on the location on Earth; e.g., areas situated near the poles usually receive a higher dose.
It is known that in the Earth's history there were many periods of warming and cooling. There is a hypothesis that a number of them were caused by fluctuations in the orbit of our planet. But the Earth is not a ping-pong ball; it should be well justified why in the past such fluctuations were, and now they are gone (astronomers do not confirm their existence). On the other hand, taking AGA into account easily solves this problem. Furthermore, in accordance with the principle of Occam's razor, we have the same cause of past and present climate changes.
It should be pointed out that AGA is a universal phenomenon, and therefore exerts a large influence on the solar system as well. It can, for example, stir up extremely fast winds on Neptune or stimulate the Sun (increasing the number of sunspots and eruptions) to greater activity. Obviously, the latter event again affects the climate on Earth. And, of course, AGA works in our and other galaxies.
AGA should be of interest to weather researchers for one more reason: without this phenomenon there would be no lightnings (physicists do not know from where the energy needed for their creation comes). In the end, if they do not even know why thunderbolts strike the ground (in the days of the Flat Earth people claimed at least that God was angry), i.e., there is no full energy balance, how can they maintain that know the cause of global warming?
Using global warming
For climate scientists I have the following piece of advice: Stop calculating what temperature will be on Earth after 100 years. It is a waste of time and money. Firstly, an old IT rule says that if you download trash onto your computer, you will receive trash. Hence your computer simulations have no value. Secondly, you have not known AGA. Thirdly, in 100 years' time people will know a lot about this unusual phenomenon, and thereby will be able to determine the temperature on Earth that they will want. As a result, they will do with your forecasts, in the best case, the same as we do with the predictions made in 1913.
This will be a manifestation of a more general regularity: Our civilization develops exponentially. This fact is seemingly well-known. However, some humans think that it has been so far, but now we have achieved the end of science (because we are the Einstein theory and 'Higgs particle'), and we mainly have to take care of environment. Well, from my knowledge of the subject it follows, rather, that the statement "Science is just getting started" would be closer to the truth.
For mankind until now science has been much more important than ecology. In my opinion this is very reasonable, which I am going to illustrate with two examples. In ancient Rome, the air was extremely clean, but the average lifespan of humans did not exceed 20 years (because the mortality rate among children was huge). Currently, the mean life expectancy for all people is roughly 70 years and continues to grow in spite of all the contaminants.
Suppose that over 100 years ago one could have been predicted the number of victims in accidents involving cars and the degree of atmospheric pollution caused by them. Assume also that influenced by these numbers the then UN would have been passed a ban on the development of motorization. Now I have a question for politicians pushing through environmental activities: Do you think this would have been advantageous because at present you would not have to fight global warming, and in case of illness would go to the hospital by horse-drawn carriage?
If you answer yes, then I have to explain something. Well, instead of a modern hospital there would be a barrack there. And inside, instead of a doctor with a tomographic scanner, there would be a surgeon with a primitive scalpel, who could sever something from your body, but most often not treat you. This follows from the fact that all human activities are closely related. We must therefore thank our ancestors for that they did not very care about the environment.
It is worth noting that the research progress gives also environmental effects such as, e.g., alternative drive technologies. However, you should not impose (adhering to the Hippocratic dictum primum non nocere) artificial and based on speculations without specific evidence restrictions on science and economy. For instance, if airline ticket prices are inflated by means of administrative actions (to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), then someone may not go to an important scientific conference at which a great idea could come to their mind. This can lead to enormous losses without any benefit because carbon dioxide is non-toxic, which I remind some climatologists, politicians, and journalists. (It does not react – in contrast to carbon monoxide – with the human body; this is knowledge from primary school.)
Mankind has always wanted to raise the temperature on Earth, but this cannot be achieved with the help of a side effect. However, we can already utilize global warming caused by AGA. For example, if the weather is warmer, it is possible to reduce home heating, and this will make energy consumption and atmospheric pollution smaller (which I remind environmental activists). Next, I draw attention of animal defenders to the fact that when the temperature is higher, birds find food more easily (many of them no longer have to fly away to warmer countries in the winter). Representatives of numerous zoological families reach larger sizes where it is hot (classical examples are felids and reptiles in Africa without which, after all, we would not have been either). The size of green areas is steadily growing, for plants also like heat. We can see that shipping through the most-warming Arctic (where – as well as in Antarctica – there are no factories, power stations, cars, etc., but AGA works the strongest, and therefore no speculations devised by climatologists are needed to explain the cause of this warming) becomes possible. And last but not least, if the winter is milder, fewer people die from cold, pneumonia, and influenza complications, less money is spent on snow removal, etc.
Of course, it may happen that someone somewhere will flood, but then something (e.g., a swamp) elsewhere will have to dry out. With money saved by stopping the senseless struggle with Nature we will be able to resettle these people, and even try to realize genuinely important goals, such as eliminating real pollutants (e.g., nitric oxide) and solving economic problems. Some areas will have to be artificially irrigated; for this, inter alia, people live on the planet. Let us admit that in Nature some species will be replaced by others, but it has always been.
Shortly speaking, if someone or something gives us an extra amount of energy, we must thank fate and wonder how best to use the gift. Instead of scaring (that's why some teenagers get hysterical instead of studying, taking part in olympiads, etc.), science should help people to achieve this goal in the case of global warming. And you ought to be happy that there is no global cooling because it would be really bad.
I have a remark in connection with the current pandemic (in the opinion of epidemiologists, the coronaviruses will stay with us forever, may it be with a vaccine or medicine, and moreover another disease with a new germ – perhaps more dangerous according to WHO – may appear at any time). It should make some humans aware they are trifles in the face of Nature. To survive, we still have to develop, first and foremost, science and industry. In this difficult situation I have a question for climatologists: Why, with your little knowledge based on false physical theories, do you dare to impose on humankind the ridiculous bans and restrictions that additionally weaken the economy? I recommend a bit of modesty.
I would just like to make one more comment about the epidemic. Thanks to it, the air in cities is much cleaner, which – as a little luck in great misfortune – makes me happy. However, it should be said that this is due to the relative lack of poisonous substances contained in car exhaust fumes. On the other hand – let me remind you again – carbon dioxide is not toxic, and you don't have to be afraid of it.
It is worth emphasizing that AGA also increases the air concentration level of carbon dioxide. It is associated with, among other things, a fact well known to chemists: An increase in the material temperature prior to the start of its combustion increases the speed of this process (obviously the shorter its duration, the more). This implies that at higher temperatures chemical reactions forming carbon dioxide run more efficiently (much stronger than directly proportionally to the temperature rise). Climatologists have not taken this into account probably because they are physicists. Consequently, they have confused causes with effects; the carbon dioxide concentration is growing as it gets warmer, and not vice versa.
The experimental carbon dioxide level tests confirm the effect of AGA: The concentration of this gas increases faster than the average temperature on Earth. On the other hand, Nature does not tolerate ignorance; the works of humans who do not want to learn will be thrown into a wastebasket. The only way to find out the reasons for global warming is to draw up the full balance of energy coming into and going out of Earth. But how are climatologists to do it if they don't know what 95% (dark matter + dark energy, according to general relativity) of our world consists of?