Has Censorship of Science become a Threat to us All

Jeremy Dunning-Davies: “Exploding a Myth – ‘Conventional Wisdom’ or Scientific Truth?”, Horwood Publ. Ltd. 2007, ISBN: 978-1-904275-30-5

This book is a serious warning to us all from a well known English physicist. And although this in the first run concerns our scientists, in the next it may concern us all and the future of mankind.

            Professor Dunning-Davies belongs to the older generation of prominent British physicists and has through a long life in research published more than a hundred professional articles in thermodynamics, astrophysics, statistical physics, electronics, etc. It is thus a well established scientist with a long experience in academic science who here raises his warning finger about a development he fears is now threatening the free scientific process.

            The myth this book explodes, is our naïve belief that the scientific world view of to day necessarily gives a true picture of reality. In the subtitle he contrasts conventional wisdom with scientific truth. Conventional wisdom refers here to the generally accepted theories and their view of reality. In the world of physics this means the theory of relativity and the quantum theory and the way it has become commonly accepted to interpret them.

            It is a fundamental error in science to believe that our theories are identical with reality. This they can never be. They are models of thought we have developed to organize our experience and give us a best possible understanding of reality. The history of science tells us how we have developed theories to give us an ever better view of reality, such as the mechanics of Newton that replaced the epicycles of Ptolemeus, and this again was replaced by the general theory of relativity of Einstein. There is, however, no reason to believe that the development is now at an end. It is in the very nature of science to pose critical questions and remain open for new ways to understand reality. And that is why we have developed distinct rules to maintain science as an open quest for truth, and not fall into rigid dogmatism.

            It is these rules of academic science Dunning-Davies now feels are threatened. His own encounter with this phenomenon he dates to 1987. Together with the Italian physicist Bernard Lavenda he had raised decisive doubt against the validity of the so called Beckenstein-Hawking expression for entropy in black holes. Together they wrote a short letter about this which was published in the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity (5,1,149). As this was something new, they followed it up with an article giving more extensive argumentation. This article was, however, refused by the journal although there had been no objections to the claims in the original letter. Since then Dunning-Davies and Lavenda have written several articles on the thermodynamics of black holes, but almost in all cases there have been problems getting these published. This has also been the case when they have raised criticism against the theory of Guth about inflation. The alarming point here is that there has not been a question of scientific objections: “The point to note here is that open scientific discussion was actively prevented by a person, or persons, unknown; it is not a case of one party arrogantly claiming itself to be definitely correct but rather from being prevented from expressing an opinion.”

            What here met Dunning-Davies and Lavenda has also met several other serious scientists. It is, therefore, reason to talk about a new tendency which marks a decisive break from previous academic rules for scientific debate. The author sees this partly as an expression of a new dogmatism in physics where theories are no longer regarded as hypothetic approaches to reality, but as accepted truths that may no longer be questioned. But the question raises itself whether we are here facing non-scientific forces which for hidden reasons try to direct and manipulate the scientific debate.

            Whatever the motivation, this is a highly questionable tendency that may cripple the further scientific development. Several people have suggested that in the climate of present academic science a new Albert Einstein would have small chances for success. When the young Einstein in 1905 wrote three articles: on the special theory of relativity, on the photoelectric effect, and on the Brownian movements, that each in itself may have qualified for a Nobel price, it was shear luck that he could send them to a journal where Max Planck – another of the great pioneers who created the physics of the 20^th century – was editor. It is told that Planck sent a collaborator to the patent office in Bern to find out who this Albert Einstein was!

            We live at a critical time when the threat of an impending energy/climate crisis has got serious dimensions, and Dunning-Davies asks rightly what consequences this new tendency to stifle debate in physics may get. With good reason he uses 40 pages of the total of 250 to discuss the work of Ruggero Santilli and the development of hadron mechanics. According to several scientists, hadron mechanics to day is a more advanced and adequate theory than quantum mechanics. Although some 200 scientists to day are engaged in hadron mechanics it is, however, hardly known at all to the public. This is not the least due to the fact that it has met antagonistic forces that have tried to belittle and ridicule it. It is, therefore, necessary to give short information what it is about.

            Quantum theory has had great experimental success and is held to be perhaps the best verified physical theory. But when it comes to the very short distances we find in atomic nuclei, it no longer gives precise predictions. It is here hadron mechanics comes in, ‘hadron’ having to do with atomic nuclei. The starting point for Santilli was research on the neutron which is a neutral particle of almost the same mass as the proton. Rutherford had claimed that the neutron in reality is a proton and an electron that are tightly bound together into a neutral particle. Quantum theory could, however, not explain this on a theoretical basis. Santilli, however, succeeded in doing this. And this was the starting point for the development of a general theory which to day also includes chemistry, hadron chemistry.

            Santilli got in his time support from the great philosopher of science, Karl Popper:    ”…. his (Santilli’s) most fascinating arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics should not, without new tests, be regarded as valid in nuclear and hadronic mechanics, seem to me to augur a return to sanity: to that realism and objectivism for which Einstein stood, and which had been abandoned by these two very great physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr.”  (K.R. Popper: “Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics”, 1982). He has published in heavy scientific journals, one of them having 7 Nobel laureates in the redaction committee, and there have been no serious scientific objections to his theory. And yet, hadron mechanics has not found sufficient support to receive funds for necessary research. This is, according to Dunning-Davies, unreasonable and deeply regrettable because hadron mechanics opens for technological possibilities that may be of decisive significance for our possibilities to meet the energy/climate crisis we are heading for.

            First of all this has to do with the possibilities of producing clean energy through hadronic processes. This is a theme Santilli has given great attention. There are several possibilities, but all of these require further experimental verification. Another important field is the handling of radioactive refuse. This is already a great problem and will increase in magnitude with existing plans to build many more nuclear reactors to meet future demands for energy. Hadron mechanics opens for methods to treat and neutralise radioactive waste on the spot. This is theoretically possible, but still needs experimental verification. According to Dunning-Davies, this will cost a few hundred thousands pound sterling. This might seem a lot of money, but it is peanuts compared to the cost of the large particle accelerators. And the potential profit for the environment and life on earth will be enormous.

            In one field the theory of Santilli has already created a new technology that has been verified and is useful. Hadronic chemistry introduces a new kind of chemical elements ‘magnecules’ with new and unexpected properties. Magnecule-hydrogen can be used to drive cars, just as ordinary hydrogen. And it has many advantages: it requires less energy to produce and it is safer to handle. The weight of magnecule-hydrogen is 7,47 times greater than that of ordinary hydrogen at the same pressure, which means that you may drive 7,47 times longer with a tank filled with this at the same size and pressure. Replacing ordinary gasoline with magnecule-essence for cars may reduce the output of CO2 with 50 %. Hadronic reactors to produce magnecule-essence have been constructed and do function properly. This is accordingly a technology that is well documented and may be introduced at short notice with an immediate ecological profit. Such a reactor has now been sold to India. Chinese physicists also have shown interest for hadron mechanics and hadron chemistry. It would be of benefit for us all if either India or/and China become pioneering countries for the development of hadron technologies.

            Here in Western countries this is obstructed. Dunning-Davies fears that similar obstructions take place in other fields of science and writes how tragic this would be in medicine. As a medical doctor I know that this certainly takes place in medicine where strong economic interests are involved. But to me it is less serious that human beings suffer individually because of diseases that might have been cured, than that we may not be able to avert an ecological catastrophe that may affect the whole planet.

            In 1989 I wrote together with Lars Erik Mellqvist: “For reasons of environment and resources mankind must during the approaching decades develop new sources for energy that may replace fossil fuels like coal and oil. We are in a hurry to develop such new forms of alternative energy if we are to avert a break down of the ecology of the Earth and/or a break down in world economy.” (V. Schjelderup and L.E. Mellquvist: “Vakum feltenergi som mulig kilde til alternativ, ren energi”, Jotunheimen stiftelse 1989). Already at that time the writing on the wall was imminently clear. We are here facing a challenge so serious we can not afford to reject possible solutions on the basis of prejudice or petty considerations.

            Here Dunning-Davies sounds an alarm for all of us. After his book was published an article appeared in International Journal of Hydrogen Energy by the American professor of chemistry Calo disclaiming an article Santilli earlier had published in the same journal about magnecule-water. Calo claimed that the ideas of Santilli were baseless and could be discarded if you knew some basic facts chemistry had clarified long time back. The remarkable fact is, however, that Santilli was not notified. According to accepted academic rules he should have been presented with the article by Calo in advance to give him the chance to give an answer in the same issue of the journal. What happened seems to confirm the suspicion Dunning-Davies raises in his book that non-scientific interests interfere, and that they do have great influence.

            It looks as if science may be into a turbulent development, as it did happen during earlier scientific revolutions, and that this now increasingly becomes a matter not only for scientists, but for society in general. Dunning-Davies book here has a great mission. It is now up to vigilant people, both within and outside the world of scientists, to defend the free process of science and demand respect for the traditional rules of academic science.

www.syntropi.no