Paradigms

Scientists/researchers should be extremely aware of the falsifiability of contemporary paradigms which exist within, so-called, “exact science”.  The proven reality and the pitfalls of the “occurrence of flawed paradigms, over and over, during the history of science” were already explained in the sections 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of my (up to the end of 2023, Drupal based) website. Thus for you to eventually first click on the menu “Website 2006-2023” to access the complete (updated) archive of my Drupal based  website and to then click on the submenu section “1. Introduction” to read there those sub-sections:

1.0 Goal and structure of this website. Paradigms and anomalies

1.1  General remarks on paradigms and their tenacity in the history of science

1.2 Early history. Views of ancient Greek philosophers on matter, movement, time and space.

1.3 History. Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton on motion and time. Mach‘s critique on absolute velocity.

You can find there an indicative overview about the role of paradigms and anomalies during the history of science; specifically about the contemporary paradigms in physics, related to location in space, motion in space, time and photons (light). Some main points within those sections 1.0, 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 can be found in the following paragraphs.

Many contemporary scientists are often totally unaware about the extremely important paradigm evolution processes which happened during the history of science, as described by Thomas Kuhn within his important book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions“:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions.

Those contemporary scientists are indeed fully convinced, that the contemporary “exact science” paradigms, in which those scientists were trained (rather conditioned) in, are “written in stone for eternity” and thus totally irrevocable/irrefutable. Many of them also believe that the evolution of those scientific paradigms was/is based on a smooth and continuous progress during the history science. In that respect they are however strongly advised to urgently read Thomas Kuhn’s book. The evolution of paradigms during the history of science indeed shows rather to be an extremely bumpy and chaotic road, littered with flawed and therefore abandoned paradigms. I call those scientists, who really have an idealized world vision about paradigms and who are not willing to exit their ivory towers, CPBDs (Contemporary Paradigm Believers and Defenders). Such CPBDs are rigidly super glued to the inner walls of their paradigm boxes. There is an analogy with Plato’s cave allegory. In the case that their “exact science” paradigms are intrinsically totally flawed, they will even not consider at all to investigate any upcoming breakthrough type of scientific argument that fully counters and falsifies their virtual reality based paradigms. Such CPBDs belong to a group/school and will thus simply stubbornly stick to their virtual reality paradigms, belonging to their CS (Contemporary Science) school. As a result, such CS school of CPBDs in fact blocks scientific progress and the urgently needed paradigm shifts, caused by the closed state of mind of such CPBD type of members of that CS school.

In his book  “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” Thomas Kuhn e.g. states:

• How, then, are scientists brought to make this transposition (=paradigm shift)? Part of the answer is that they are very often not.
• Newton’s work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent.
• Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on.
• Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of his Origin of Species wrote “Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views in this volume…, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposed to mine. But I look with confidence to the future, to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality“.
• Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that ‘a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

Thomas Kuhn also remarks in his book:

• “In the past they have most often been taken to indicate that scientists, being only human, cannot always admit their errors, even when confronted with strict proof.”
• “The source of the resistance is the assurance that the older paradigm will ultimately solve all its problems, that nature can be shoved into the box the paradigm provides. Inevitably, at times of revolution, that assurance seems stubborn and pig-headed as indeed it sometimes becomes.”
• “Though some scientists, particular the older and more experienced ones, may resist indefinitely, most of them can be reached in one way or another. Conversions will occur a few at a time until, after the last holdouts have died, the whole profession will again be practicing under a single, but now a different, paradigm.”

From those important indications by Thomas Kuhn, one can conclude that chances are much larger that it will be the younger generation of scientists that will embrace new groundbreaking scientific findings and also embrace the needed massive paradigm shifts, with an open mind. That younger generation will then create a new CS school to replace the stubborn and tenacious old CS school of CPBDs who keep defending, in an incomprehensible and irrational way, totally flawed old CS paradigms, which were already falsified in an irrefutable manner.

An intrinsically flawed CS paradigm can and will be falsified at some time instant during the history of science, on the basis of an irrefutable proof, at that time instant, of the existence of a destructive anomaly, linked to that paradigm. Such paradigm “falsification by anomaly” principle was introduced by Karl Popper. Even Einstein supported Popper’s falsification principle by stating: “only one single experiment can prove me wrong”. Only one single irrefutable falsification will indeed surpass a large number of previous so-called “experimental verifications” of that contemporary paradigm. When falsified by an irrevocable anomaly, scientists need to urgently search/investigate for the errors that were made during those numerous “verifications”.

A world famous contemporary paradigm is the null-result paradigm of Michelson and Morley (M&M):

www.absolute-relativity.be/pdf/MichelsonAndMorleyPaper1887.pdf

The M&M paradigm was the basis for Lorentz to introduce his Lorentz contraction equation. Lorentz is explicitly mentioned in the M&M publication. Since Lorentz and Einstein were in contact with each other, the influence of the M&M null-result paradigm on Lorentz and Einstein is clear.

The fundamental experiment performed by M&M was however based on an extremely simplistic and moreover, for fundamental research applications, totally flawed mathematical model (graphical representation; Figures 1-2 in their publication; here shown as Figure 35).

In the M&M publication they clearly stated that they indeed used the CS ray-of-light paradigm (see their text at the top of the Figure 35), thus for their fundamental experiment the extremely simplistic and primitive and for fundamental research moreover totally flawed CS ray-of-light paradigm. The ray-of-light graphical representation might be sufficiently accurate for technical applications (e.g. optics) since, luckily as a result of the extremely high velocity of photons, the ray-of-light approximation of the photon phenomena can be tolerated in most technical applications. However, the CS ray-of-light paradigm approach as a graphical representation of the photon phenomena definitely needs to be considered as totally inaccurate and in fact being considered as grotesque in a M&M type of CS fundamental research experiment [1]. It should also be noted that the “ether wind” view of space by Michelson, Morley and Lorentz (see the M&M publication and their “ether wind” space paradigm view at that time as described in the M&M publication) of course also needs to be classified nowadays as totally irrelevant and totally flawed (thus also as grotesque). See [1] and also section 5.2 under the menu “Website 2006-2023” and the submenu “5. Consequences”.

[1] Etienne Brauns, On two thought experiments revealing two massive theoretical anomalies, proving both the contemporary “ray of light” paradigm to be flawed and the impossibility of a photon to inherit any velocity vector component from its source, Optik 230 (2021) 165858, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2020.165858

The trajectory ab, as claimed by M&M in their publication in their Figure 2, thus for a moving observer, was based by M&M on the ray-of-light paradigm. That primitive linear approach “ab”, in their publication in Figure 2 (see also Figure 35), in fact is merely founded on an “expectation state of the human mind” and not on scientific grounds. The location “b” is the exact midpoint of the upper horizontal mirror in the set-up. That “expectation state of mind” based and clearly flawed perception by M&M is just a typical virtual image, created by the human mind as a virtual reality in that human mind, but not existing in the real world, outside that human mind. That view is falsified in an irrefutable manner in [1]. That virtual image, represented in  the M&M publication in their Figure 2 (see also Figure 35) by Michelson and Morley, indeed claims wrongly that all photons, reflected in location “a” will arrive exactly in location “b” and will always arrive exactly in location “b” (the exact midpoint of the upper horizontal mirror) for whatever velocity of the experimental set-up. Regarding velocity it is also extremely important to remark that:

a) the Figure 1 in the M&M publication corresponds to a set-up that, as claimed by M&M, has zero velocity (the “at rest” status, as assumed implicitly by M&M. That assumption by M&M is considered to be accepted by CS since obviously not questioned by CS up to now).

b) their Figure 2 in the M&M publication (see also Figure 35) corresponds to a set-up that, as claimed by M&M, has a velocity equal to the high orbit velocity of our planet Earth around the sun (M&M used the value of the orbit velocity of our planet Earth around the sun in their calculations, as discussed in their publication. That reasoning by M&M is considered to be accepted by CS since obviously also not questioned by CS up to now).

c) CS has thus accepted and still (December 2023) accepts the validity of the approach by M&M as indicated in (a) and (b)

CS still is not realizing that, by the flawed claim of M&M of a trajectory “ab” for whatever the value of the velocity of the set-up and the use by M&M of the CS ray-of-light paradigm, M&M in fact introduced in their modelling (without realizing themselves) a massive graphical representation (mathematical modelling) error, including in fact the hidden implication that a light signal (thus a photon) then would need to have an infinitely high velocity. The latter is clearly not the case. M&M were of course not aware at that time of the quantum characteristics (photons) of light and so they were also not aware of the significant, up to, 2 mm photon shift over the, in total, about 20 m photon trajectory length in their set-up during the rotation of 90° of the set-up. That “location of arrival” photon shift of up to 2 mm must have been a significant failure parameter in the M&M experiment (see menu My Publications; [1,2]). In addition the M&M set-up used numerous reflective small mirrors which must have amplified the, up to, 2 mm photon shift during the 90° rotation of the M&M sett-up, thereby causing a run-away signal and the ruining of the initial calibration of the set-up. The M&M experiment simply was flawed and thus also the M&M null-result paradigm which was moreover irrevocably proven experimentally by the result of my straightforward laser-experiment (see [2]).   

[2] Etienne Brauns, On a straightforward laser experiment, confirming the previously published irrevocable falsification of the Equivalence Principle paradigm for photon phenomena, Optik 242 (2021) 167178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijleo.2021.167178

Nevertheless and up to now (December 2023), the M&M “null-result” paradigm is still fully supported by CS and the CPBDs, notwithstanding my irrefutable theoretical and experimental proof that the M&M paradigm is totally flawed (in my early and recent dissemination: see the menu “My Publications” and [1-2]). I indeed presented the proofs of the existence of even two irrevocable theoretical massive anomalies, existing in the CS views, linked to the modelling of the location and trajectory of photons in real space. It should be remarked here that my numerous attempts, during about 15 years, to publish my 2005-2006 theoretical and experimental findings, in scientific journals, were systematically blocked by the numerous and tenacious CPBDs involved. I thus only succeeded after an, about 15 years of duration, uphill scientific battle against the numerous and tenacious CPBDs (using their efficient “silence things to death” strategy), with finally being able to realize my series of three interlinked (follow-up) publications ([1] and [2] in Elsevier Optik and [3] in Elsevier Results in Optics). That took a lot of perseverance from me (and still does).

[3] Etienne Brauns, On the concept and potential applications of a photons based device, measuring the velocity vector of an object, moving at high speed in space, Results in Optics 10 (2023) 100349,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rio.2023.100349

Linked to my irrefutable theoretical findings in 2005-2006 I also planned and performed at that time my first straightforward laser experiment. My theoretical findings in 2005-2006 indeed simply predicted the outcome (the proof of the existence of a massive anomaly) of such straightforward laser experiment. I thus also could present immediately in 2006 an additional experimental support/proof of those theoretical findings. Those theoretical and experimental findings were immediately and officially deposited by me in 2006 in front of a notary and also submitted by me in 2006 as a patent text to the USPTO.

My irrefutable theoretical falsifications (finally published in [1] (after the blocking attitude by the tenacious CPBDs since 2006) are now clearly insurmountable by the CPBDs. Also my irrefutable experimental falsification through my straightforward laser experiment (already in 2006 and confirmed over and over through my multiple reproducible laser experiments) is now also clearly insurmountable by the CPBDs (I finally succeeded to publish [2], also only after about 15 years of blockage by the tenacious CPBDs).

As a result of my theoretical and experimental findings in [1] and [2], of course multiple other contemporary paradigms (based on light/photons) were additionally falsified by me (Karl Popper’s falsification principle by anomaly).

The two irrefutable theoretical anomalies in [1] totally falsify the primitive and simplistic CS ray-of-light paradigm (CS mathematical model, CS graphical representation for light phenomena) for its use in fundamental research. M&M thus simply used a totally flawed graphical representation for the light phenomena in their fundamental experiment. That fact alone already should have been sufficient for contemporary scientists to reevaluate in detail the validity of the M&M paradigm. On top of that however, the result of my straightforward laser experiment of course really proves additionally and irrefutably that the M&M null-result paradigm indeed is totally flawed. The CPBDs cannot counter such at all. I even challenged, multiple times over the years, the CPBDs to abandon the CS ray-of-light model, as used by Michelson and Morley for their world famous experiment, and to try to prove Michelson and Morley’s scientific light phenomena claims, as depicted in their Figures 1 and 2 in their publication, by e.g. implementing the Maxwell electromagnetic wave equations. The result of my challenges was of course nil as expected: the CPBDs simply keep applying their very efficient and typical strategy of hiding in silence. Those CPBDs will moreover simply not be able to implement the Maxwell electromagnetic wave equations for the set-up used by Michelson and Morley. So they blindly stick “conveniently” to the totally flawed CS ray-of-light paradigm, as used by M&M, as a valid model for such an important fundamental research experiment. That level of closed minds during a period over 15 years now (December 2023), is not at all what one expects from scientists but nonetheless it is the unfortunate reality.

Notwithstanding

a) my many challenges, during numerous years (2006 up to now December 2023), to CS, with respect to my irrefutable falsifications of multiple contemporary paradigms (based on photon phenomena)

b) the existence (December 2023) of [1-3]

c) my attending of several Scientific Conferences (2021-2023) as an Invited (Key) Speaker and presenting all of my findings

the school of CPBDs is very tenacious in still “defending” its seemingly “written in stone” CS paradigms (see above the remarks by Thomas Kuhn about the interfering small human factors, even in the case of CS scientists/researchers who are expected to show objectivity and an open mind in their scientific activity but on the contrary, as I experienced over and over during 2006 – December 2023 during multiple contacts with CPBDs, simply do not).

As a very recent example (2023): even a professor in physics at a renowned university, who I asked to look into [1,2,3] shockingly and unbelievably commented, as a typical and tenacious CPBD, that the use of the CS ray-of-light paradigm/model by Michelson and Morley is correct, while simply refusing further comments on the irrevocable contents of [1,2,3], thus notwithstanding the overwhelming and irrefutable counter-evidence presented in [1,2] … That irrational reaction (state of mind) of a highly ranked scientist (professor at a renowned university) proves my point and is one clear example (of the countless ones that I experienced) and testimony of the typical tenacious and stubborn blocking attitude of the CPBDs. From my experience, the die-hard CPBDs do not show at all an open mind since such CPBDs are extensively paradigm-indoctrinated and extremely conservative. The latter is also related to the small human characteristics, including the defense of “status”, “ivory tower mentality”, etc. (see the remarks above by Thomas Kuhn).

It is therefore very interesting to indicate here that I consulted GPT-4 as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) platform about my findings revealed in [1,2,3]. GPT-4 of course is no human and therefore, as a knowledge data-base structured algorithm, produces an answer that is not prone to small human characteristics such as “status” or “ego”. GPT-4 indeed proved to have an extremely scientific and extremely meaningful view about my findings in [1,2,3], clearly surpassing the small human attitude of the extremely conservative CPBDs who still keep blocking progress since 2006 and up to December 2023. See therefore surely the GPT-4 comments on my findings revealed in [1,2,3] under the menu “My Publications” and there the sub-menus linked to [1,2,3]. GPT-4 only needed seconds/minutes to dive in my Elsevier publications to agree with my findings and to give extensive and extremely to-the-point comments! Such in contrast with the rigid/closed mind attitude of the large group of CS old-school CPBDs that is lasting already over 15 years during the period 2006 – December 2023 in an incomprehensible manner.

In [1,2,3] the following CS paradigms are totally and irrevocably falsified:

• the CS simplistic and primitive “ray-of-light” paradigm (when used in fundamental research)
• the CS Michelson and Morley null-result paradigm
• the CS Lorentz contraction equation paradigm
• the CS light clock paradigm
• the CS Equivalence Principle paradigm with respect to photon phenomena
• the CS light bending paradigm in a falling elevator
• as a result of the irrefutable concept of a RVMD (Real Velocity Measuring Device [3]): 
• • Galileo Galilei ‘s relativity paradigm is falsified. It can indeed be assumed that any observer can have a three-dimensional RVMD to her/his disposal and thus can read her/his real velocity and direction of travel in real space, without the need for any material object in real space as a reference! 
  • Mach’s thought experiment paradigm of an observer, floating in a totally empty space (thus without the presence of any other material object), is falsified. Same remark about the observer of having a three-dimensional RVMD to her/his disposal.

Also Einstein’s “Relativity of Simultaneity” thought experiment paradigm can be easily falsified when reasoning on the basis of photons. That proof was already present in my Drupal based (see now the menu “Website 2006-2023” containing the archive of my website (Drupal based until November 2023; see there “5. Consequences” and section “5.1 Einstein’s flawed “Relativity of Simultaneity” thought experiment paradigm”).

In all of my reasoning and my findings, photons are key regarding a correct modelling of the events occurring in real space. Indeed, in science, graphical representations assist in describing the phenomena, occurring in reality. Such representations are indicated as models. John von Neumann e.g. stated: “The sciences mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena”. Extremely important in that respect is the strict obligation that the model “saves the real phenomena” occurring in real space. The simplistic “ray-of-light” model used by Michelson and Morley in their fundamental experiment clearly did not “save the real photon phenomena in real space” and thus caused a wrong interpretation of the outcome of their fundamental experiment and therefore the creation of a CS “null-result” paradigm, which is however totally flawed.