One of the conclusions of Einstein’s general relativity is that gravity is a wave field, intricately related to spacetime and mass. Spacetime bends around mass i.e. planets and stars, which is supposed to explain phenomena such as circular movement of planets – in four-dimensional spacetime they would apparently move along straight lines. The curvature of spacetime around mass, according to Einstein, constitutes gravity, which is also responsible for distorting the shape of objects and curving light. The conclusions and ramifications of general relativity are more esoteric the further one follows them. Nobody however dares to doubt them seriously. Why? Because they conform with a theory created by someone who, together with two or three others, actually understood it at the time.

As an inexorable result of general relativity we are made to believe that gravity, as a continuous field, holds the Universe together and affects the way we perceive it, while at the same time, strangely, physicists ascribe to it insignificant values. The diminishing treatment of gravity in the molecular domain is a result of believing that electrons are bound to the nucleus by electrostatic forces, hence very little room for gravity. As for astrophysics, while scientists try to come to terms with this microscopic force plying a paramount role in the mechanic of the Universe, supersensitive instruments are developed to measure the microscopic gravity waves.

Werner Heisenberg

To argue with Einstein about his relativity theory would be like to take James Joyce to task over Ulyssess. One would first have to be able to write a piece similar to it, or at least share the characteristics of the mind that created the novel, to be able to offer a reasonable argument. Similarly, it is devilishly difficult to offer a counterargument to a highly complicated theory that only a few can follow. “It is a real witches’ calculus… most ingenuous and adequately protected by its great complexity against being proven wrong.” Einstein was heard to utter these words about Heisenberg’s calculations demonstrating the uncertainty principle. They make one wonder what led him to this conclusion. Was it not a taste of his own medicine?

Einstein’s own “great complexities” were not great enough not to be proven wrong on a few occasions. He was shown to blundered by proposing his universal constant, believing that the Universe was static, and he erred again opposing conclusions of the quantum theory, which he summed up in another famous quotation: “God does not play dice with the world”.

In fact, it does not even take Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle to demonstrate that it is not dice but roulette, with unlimited number of slots, that may be played here. A careful look at the commonly accepted duality of particle and wave, discovered by Einstein and further developed by De Broglie and Shrödinger, will leave one with an inevitable conclusion: since a particle may be considered a wave – think of voice or light spreading in all directions from a source point – it can in fact be anywhere, and nowhere in particular, within the spread of the wave.

Louis De Broglie

Einstein never reconciled himself with the cold conclusions of the quantum theory, living a legacy of resistance and hostility to the new and proven science. Thus he created a tacit discord within the body of science and bias favouring the old Newtonian paradigm and mentality. Alternative approaches are hardly acknowledged in mainstream science, or even in the public domain, allowing Einstein’s followers, often brilliant minds, to develop propositions based on – and never straying from – the theory of relativity, “propping” themselves whenever convenient with novel ideas i.e. quantum physics.

Stephen Hawking is an example of this group. With his uniquely acute mind, there is hardly anyone out there to prove him wrong. Trying to make Einstein’s relativity work, he is virtually capable of turning the Universe inside-out to find one shred of evidence, one sublimely unique case, that would fit the relative theory bill. This can be illustrated by his dedicated work related to the existence of black holes, “dark matter” or pursuing the fashionable these days string and supper string theories. And all of this in the name of believing, like in the Gospel, that nothing can be faster than the speed of light, although continuous gravity field, defended by Hawking and others, implies simultaneous communication within it.

Most honest physicists would admit that the era of classical, common sense physics ended with Einstein in the first half of the twentieth century. Quantum physics has taken over, and nobody who has at least some understanding of both sciences can deny that. So why is it that we continue with the old and ignore the new? Hard to say for sure, and one can only offer some hypotheses.

Perhaps the atom bomb was a sufficient reassurance of the success of the relativity theory. Or maybe it is because we lack something these days. The “quantum leap” was achieved by a combined effort of minds bent on truly Faustian pursuit of the truth and enlightenment. Towards the end of the nineteenth and beginning of twentieth centuries, the Germanic element proved to have a knack at producing such powerful and curious minds.

Erwin Schrödinger

This era seems over now. Perhaps the monstrosities committed by Germany during the Second World War, and the final outcome of it, have put a stop to the flow of brilliant thought. We are now left with Anglo-Saxon domination in science. Relentless, dedicated chase after answers to the big questions has been replaced by a relaxed, playful, post-modern approach. If it is not the British treatment of physics as if it was cricket or golf that can be enjoyed with scant regard for the final outcome, it is the American one, where the almighty dollar dictates everything. Laboratories related to the latter approach are probably places where German geniuses may still be found.

Regardless of whether any of those hypotheses are right, what really matters is that despite being defeated and superseded, Einstein physics still dominates, which among other negative outcomes leads to slow and misdirected pace of the progress of science and humanity.

Now, let us take a look for a moment at the sub-microscopic world. In 1911 Ernest Rutherford proposed that the atom resembles the solar systems, whereby electrons are kept spinning around the nucleus thanks to electrostatic forces. The world believed him, probably because this was the easiest conclusion to draw, and the only one that could be drawn with the state of knowledge at the time. Rutherford’s conclusion immediately posed a dilemma: if this is so, then why negatively charged electrons do not just collapse onto the nucleus.

If there is a question, and someone desperate enough to solve it, there will always be an answer, and it was Bohr who found it on that occasion. Bohr’s rationale was too eagerly awaited at the time to be defeated, so his rather ungainly model of allowed orbits was adopted. Whether the allowed orbit theory is true or not, there is still a big question: where does the constant supply of energy for the electrons orbiting the nucleus come from?

While we are told to believe that electrons are bound to the nuclei by electrostatic forces – to the exclusion of any other forces – convoluted theories are invented to patch up cracks in the theory of relativity and marry two conflicting concepts: perceived insignificant magnitude of gravity versus its grandiose role in the Universe. One cannot help the analogy of persisting on building a house on sand of old paradigms, rather than starting afresh with the benefit of the solid foundation of new technologies and knowledge.

Why not revisit the theory of relativity with a fresh eye? What is wrong with retracing Rutherford’s steps and find a more plausible model for the atom, which hopefully would not result in another chain of made-to-fit monstrous complexities? Why not give another shot at those and other concepts with the use of today’s open-mindedness and widened horizons. Duality of wave and particle, equality of mass and energy, photoelectric effect and Planck’s law – foundation blocks of quantum mechanics – appear able to withstand most tests and re-examinations.

Scientific establishment, however, following in the footsteps of Einstein, does not seem comfortable with going back to the drawing boards, and there are many reasons for that, including the risk of loosing power, status, respect and research grants. These reasons are strong enough to ensure that postulates of Einstein, Rutherford and others will not be seriously put to the test for quite a while yet.

While we are waiting for the overdue revitalisation, nothing should stop curious minds from probing and looking for answers. Perhaps gravity is indeed a dominant force in the Universe, but not necessarily as a wave field. There may be a different model, or models, for example one that will follow in the next few paragraphs.

As galaxies were formed from nebulas after receiving the initial spin, nuclear and electromagnetic forces prevailed during the first stage. As the spinning disc – a gallaxy or solar system – became more and more a collection of aggregating and consolidating celestial bodies rather than dust, a third ‘ghost-like’ factor started taking over.

Ghost-like – because it did not really exist at the beginning. It came to being as a result of the other, electromagnetic and nuclear processes fading away, whilst the constantly spinning disc was held together by this mysterious force of inertia, “force of habit” of a structure that wants to continue staying together. Inexistent – because it was not there when the disc started forming from the nebula, and there is absence of its measurable existence, when the final product i.e. galaxy or solar system stabilises.

If gravity were a real, primary force, than we should be able to recreated it, set up virtual models to verify theoretical assumptions. We should be able to build replica models of our solar system, the same way we can recreate effects of electromagnetism and nuclear reactions. To this day no one has accomplished that.

Gravity may be then a side outcome of a formation process, a memory of the system of how it was together at the beginning, or an intrinsic bond between components of a spinning and evolving system. The effect of gravity on us humans could be explained in the same way: it is the “will” of Earth, whose part we are, to keep on being a whole as it was at the moment the nebula of the Milky Way received a spinning motion from the collision with another nebula, or from the blast of an exploding star.

Gravity in this light could be seen as being in relationship with the other two forces, electromagnetic and nuclear: the larger the two other ones, the smaller gravity; the smaller the effects of electromagnetism and atomic reactions, the more pronounced is the force of gravity. Added together they perhaps form a constant value for an evolving system, with the balance shifting between the three agents as the system evolves.

Let us suppose for a moment that gravity, and not electrostatics, holds the atom together. This appeals to the mind for at least one good reason. Since nature tends to follow simple solutions rather than complex ones, it is easier to comprehend a system, in which electrons spin around the nucleus using a lesser amount of energy to continue its movement. Overcoming gravitational attraction by electrons seems to require less exertion to remain on the orbit, than doing the same while counterbalancing electrostatic forces. The analogy with gigantic scales tells us that indeed hardly any energy is required, because the system uses the original momentum given at the creation out of the nebula.

Democritus of Abdera

Admittedly, the weakness of the postulate of gravity as a “force of habit”, applied to micro-scale, lies in the implicit cloning effect required to recreate so many identical miniature solar systems – atoms. Perhaps quantum physics could help here. Maybe there is really only one atom, which multiplies itself in endless possibilities of its size and never ending variations of its position in space. Maybe neither of the two forces – gravity or electrostatics – are responsible for the atomic bond, and perhaps electromagnetism is the answer. Or there could be another, unknown force, we are yet to discover.

There is also a chance that going back to the ancients, who started the concept of the atom and deep space, and following the path of discoveries step by step, would lead us in a different direction to understand how the atom and the Universe work. Why not use advances in technology and new discoveries and retrace the steps of Anaximander, Pythagoras, Democritus of Abdera, Galileo, Copernicus, and of the nineteen and twentieth century founders of moderns physics?

We are already told by quantum mechanics that particles and sub-particles are not exactly what we originally thought they were: they have a dual character, they come in and out of existence, and we cannot tell precisely where they are. We are yet to hear what particles and sub-particles – atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons – really are. Adhering to the traditional model of the atom is only likely to get us deeper into esoteric, super complex theoretical models, such as the “big bang”, black holes, gravity waves, “dark matter” or super strings, only to make them fit the theory of relativity.

Pythagoras

Proposing that the likes of Einstain, Rutherford, Shrödinger and Hawking have offered made-to-fit, theoretical explanations seems much less ominous that perpetuating a myth, a dogma, and professing it the only truth. Science these days dangerously approached a religion status. Because of this, it is beyond the reach and understanding of the average person, and yet it has a profound effect on us all. Scientists in their laboratories have grown to the role of priests or shamans. Nobody, apart from the established scientific world – not even governments with their armies – are really in the know and therefore nobody will push for a change of the paradigm, and “priests” themselves are clearly not willing to do it either.

I am still bewildered by a line said by the character played by Danny Glover in the film Grand Canyon, when he marvelled about his father’s staying power despite the unspeakable hardship. “Force of habit”, was the father’s surprising answer to his son’s question. It may be that the same passive, dispassionate principle, is one that holds together not only our lives but the miniature and giant Universes. Ironically, the same principle may be responsible for the lack of resolve to move on in the scientific world.

What adds to the irony is that the person, who is portrayed as a symbol of progress and faith in the human mind these days, actually symbolises the opposite. One can only hope that the spirit of daring and yearning for the truth will sneak back into laboratories one day. Among possible outcomes of this may be the discovery that we are able to make threats to mankind a child’s play – either because they only exist in our minds, or because we are more than capable to face them.

Robert Panasiewicz

Author’s note: The above article has been prepared in the spirit of fair dealing, and is not intended to be a scholarly account or for profit. Most of the material contained therein is in the public domain.

The literature items specifically used by the author include:
Robert Matthews, Unravelling the Mind of God, Virgin Books, London, 1992
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Bantham Press, London, 1989

Recommended further reading:
The Emperor's New Mind; Concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics by Roger Penrose.

Illustrations:
Robin Scagell, Night Sky Atlas, Dorling Kindersley Limited, London, 2004
Jon Balchin, 100 Scientists Who Changed the World, Arcturus, London, 2003