Is the entire universe composed of a single atom? Or perhaps we exist within the Matrix, and the world is merely an illusion? Could there be other worlds close to us, intersecting with our own? These are just a few of the myriad theories that abound. Yet, people are increasingly skeptical of them. What evidence supports these ideas?
Last week, scientists assembled in London where over the course of two days, they sat in conference. Renowned scientific minds came together. The sessions began at 9 a.m., with coffee served by 11:30, followed by lunch invitations at 1:30. Coffee was available once more at 4:30, and by 5 p.m., they adjourned to their hotels. The atmosphere was a marked departure from the iconic brainstorming sessions of the 1960s.
And the result?
The primary message from the organizers, led by the Royal Society of London, was reassuring: everything is in order! We have a correct understanding of the world! However, they acknowledge the existence of peculiar experiments and “strenuous observational results.” These findings necessitate a slight adjustment to the widely accepted, standard model of the Universe. And this refinement was expected to enhance the general scientific comprehension.
At the close of the 19th century, a speaker proclaimed from the podium that science had unraveled all enigmas, declaring there would be no further significant discoveries. “The sky above us is clear and blue!” he exclaimed. Yet, he noted a minor cloud on the horizon, confident it would soon vanish.
The unexpected outcomes of Michelson and Morley’s experiments cast a shadow: they sought the ether, a universal medium believed to permeate all. Yet, it eluded them. Within a year, this shadow gave way to a storm, heralding the birth of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. The once esteemed worldview, deemed unassailable, toppled over.
The outdated worldview was permeated by ether. In our current, unchanging perception, dark matter occupies that role. Comparing their properties—penetrating everything, moving through matter, nearly undetectable—one might not see a distinction. The analogies may be weak, yet this one could be apt: the recent event in London was heralded as a congress of victors, but it may well end up being a congress of the vanquished. A new era ushers in a fresh worldview on the horizon.
Clouds on the horizon
Professor Peebles of Princeton expressed concern: the universe resembles a fisherman’s net, which contradicts expectations. The Standard Model suggests that the universe’s structure is fractal-like, meaning its smallest components mirror the arrangement of galaxy clusters. However, this isn’t the case in reality. Space contains voids and filaments composed of galaxies, phenomena that remain unexplained. Peebles, humorously dubbed “the living Albert Einstein” in 1984 at Princeton, notes these discrepancies without offering explanations.
Professor Efstathiou of Cambridge acknowledges the Standard Model as a marvel, with observations largely supporting it, yet there are inconsistencies. Distances in space measured by various methods do not align, dark matter posited by theorists raises more questions than it answers, and the universe’s expansion deviates from predictions. Despite these challenges, Efstathiou remains optimistic about finding solutions.
Alexandra Amon of Princeton contributes another perspective. Gravitational lensing, the phenomenon Einstein predicted where distant objects appear closer, has become a valuable method for studying galaxies at the universe’s edge. Currently, they don’t align with expectations, but that’s likely because they haven’t been extensively lensed yet. Completing a comprehensive survey of the sky should clarify these observations.
Many experts, such as Professor Matthew Madhavacheryl of the University of Pennsylvania, have discussed the cosmic microwave background. Discovered in the 1960s, this ‘background noise’ emanating from space was thought to be a remnant of the Big Bang. At the time, there was little doubt about its origins. However, upon closer examination, numerous anomalies have been found. The question arises whether the Big Bang is related to this phenomenon, and if so, why the details of this ‘noise’ don’t match predictions.
In general, man such ‘clouds’ of uncertainty were identified, creating a veritable storm of scientific inquiry. Yet, the professors remain serenely assured, promising to release their findings on glossy paper within months. It’s all too familiar, and the challenge lies in comprehending the essence of these cosmic events.
Engineers are in constant need of the truth
The esteemed scientist Sabine Hossenfelder recently released a video titled “My Dream died and now I’m here,” in which she discusses the workings of modern science. The video sheds light on why meetings, such as those in London, can be tedious, and why popular media often features exotic, and possibly false, theories.
Individuals who have established their reputation in traditional science may hold onto its principles for as long as possible. For instance, someone hailed as a “living Einstein” in 1984 might not readily embrace revolutionary changes in 2024. Conversely, the younger generation is keen to challenge the status quo. Their livelihood often depends on grants, which are typically awarded to those who gain media attention. Hence, visibility is key.
Theorists lead this charge, armed with the ability to solve equations in numerous ways to yield significant, albeit not always accurate, results. The costs are minimal—a sheet of paper or a personal computer suffices. One might propose an outlandish theory, manipulate the equations to their advantage, secure publication, attract media attention, and consequently, receive funding.
All of this must be verified experimentally, which marks the conclusion. These experiments are conducted with costly equipment, running into hundreds of thousands of dollars per minute, operated by experts akin to “living Einsteins.” Without the necessary funds, and with no access granted to use such devices, one must continually engage public interest, occasionally securing grants that barely cover stylish attire.
A dead end?
Not quite. It’s believed that an engineering approach will rescue science. It’s not a matter of “it might be this way, or it could be that,” as theorists might suggest, but rather a clear-cut “it works or it doesn’t.” Engineers, the likes of Elon Musk’s team, those developing AI, and other pioneers at the edge of innovation, are leading this charge. They haven’t unraveled the mysteries of the Big Bang yet, but progress is being made rapidly in quantum research, bringing us closer to understanding the origins of the Universe.
Revolutionary changes in natural science are on the horizon. Perhaps not immediately, but they are imminent. It’s conceivable that by the 2030s, we’ll be navigating a new realm of physics. Questions linger: Is the speed of light truly the ultimate barrier? Can time flow in reverse? These are some of the inquiries that propel us forward.
