String theory. Incompatibilities. Scientific progress.

Photo by GEORGE DESIPRIS from Pexels

In string theory, a paradigm shift could be imminent. In June 2018, a team of string theorists from Harvard and Caltech published a conjecture which sounded revolutionary: String theory is said to be fundamentally incompatible with our current understanding of “dark energy” — but only with “dark energy” can we explain the accelerated expansion of our current universe.

Timm Wrase of the Vienna University of Technology quickly realized something odd about this conjecture: it seemed to be also incompatible with the existence of the Higgs particle. His calculations, which he carried out together with theorists from Columbia University in New York and the University of Heidelberg, have been published in Physical Review. At the moment, there are heated discussions about strings and dark energy all around the world. Wrase hopes that this will lead to new breakthroughs in this line of research. (1)

Science progresses with theories.

Not by building theories.

But by destroying them.

The goal is not to prove what is right.

But to formulate theories and then prove what is wrong.

Any theory already ‘proved’ right exists under the condition that it will be someday be proved wrong – and destroyed – by the next improved theory. We have been walking for a long time now down to the path of right and wrong. And especially because it is the only correct path, it is the wrong one…

Truth is never based on something which can be falsified.

And only irrationality can get us where we dare not.

Start building your castle upon emptiness.

And nothing will be able to tear it down…

Chirality. Pasteur. Art, intuition and science…


Louis Pasteur, the 19th-century French chemist and biologist, prevented diseases, developing a process — widely known as pasteurization — for killing microbes in milk and wine. He also created vaccines for rabies and anthrax. And his ideas led to the acceptance of germ theory, the notion that tiny organisms caused diseases like cholera. Pasteur even helped us brew better beer.

“He’s considered the benefactor of mankind”, said Joseph Gal, a chemist and professor emeritus at the University of Colorado.

But before all that, Pasteur was an artist. And without his early creative explorations, he may not have made one of his most monumental, but least talked about, discoveries in science, one with far-reaching implications.

In a paper published in Nature Chemistry, Dr. Gal explains how a young Pasteur fought against the odds to articulate the existence of chirality, or the way that some molecules exist in mirror-image forms capable of producing very different effects. Today we see chirality’s effects in light, in chemistry and in the body — even in the drugs we take. And it seems that Pasteur probably conceived the chirality of specific molecules not because of his scientific knowledge but only due to his artistic experience. (1)

Discoveries in science are not based on… science.

If they were, they would be nothing more that tautologies developed inside an already developed system of knowledge. Nothing new can be developed from the old. Progress of science needs breakthroughs. And these can only come through the destruction of what we know. Instinct and non-conformity to the already given knowledge is the key to all great scientific ideas. And this can only stem from irrationality.

Look at a painting.

Do not try to “understand” it.

It is not a painting.

It is a window to the other side. To all these things you knew there are there but cannot prove it. To all these things you know before knowing them. It is the realm of your irrationality, the reflection of your Dasein. A mirror to everything you have in your mind, a reflection of everything there Is.

Nothing new can be developed from the old.

Unless the old already contains it…

Look at your hands.

They are not just your hands…

Elite scientists can hold back science.


Max Planck — the Nobel Prize–winning physicist who pioneered quantum theory — once said the following about scientific progress:

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.

Shorter: Science is not immune to interpersonal bullshit. Scientists can be stubborn. They can use their gravitas to steamroll new ideas. Which means those new ideas often only prevail when older scientists die.

Recently, researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) released a working paper — titled, “Does Science Advance One Funeral at a Time?” — that puts Planck’s principle to the test.

Sifting through citations in the PubMed database, they found evidence that when a prominent researcher suddenly dies in an academic subfield, a period of new ideas and innovation follow. (1)

Scientists as all people are… humans.

And humans are weak.

Weak people led by stronger ones.

Do not misunderstand scientists for great people. They are just sheep.

Watch out for the sheep dog instead…

Science “discovers” Higgs, as “nothing to do with progress”…


How many people have cheered about the “discovery” of the Higgs Boson? And how many would question my use of quotation marks when writing the word <discovery>? How many people are thrilled with CERN, while having absolutely no idea of the real and true mechanisms that govern the creation of science today? I have said it many times before: Science is the process of formulating prediction models. Nothing less. Nothing more!

I have argued many times before on the above so I will save you the copy-paste of other articles you can find here (see articles tagged with “Science Philosophy“). The only purpose if this article is to advise on the obvious: when worshiping something, try to learn more about it. No matter how many particles are “discovered”, they will be all VANISHED (and I mean LITERALLY!) when a new physics theory will come in place to replace the existing one! Do you think this it too much? Think again.

It was the same way the ludicrous idea of instant forces from a distance (call me “Newtonian gravity”) was totally replaced by the curved timespace (call me “Einstein gravity”). It was the same way the all mighty Ether suddently “seized to exist” when we “discovered” that light had a constant speed (too controversy in that one – check related articles).

Do you really “see” atoms? Or do you just interpret current densities as whatever you like?

Just waiting for the String Theory to completely obliterate all we “know” and tell us that what we think we see does not “exist”! … 🙂

And a bonus tip: Interpreting the tips in the signal of a SEM microscope as “atoms” does not mean we actually “see” atoms! Check out this page to see what scientists do to avoid directly answering the all simple question “Have we seen atoms?”… Or take a look at the Yahoo! Answers page… Search in Google images for “atoms” and you will see very good graphics but not one image that resembles the atom the CERN boys are searching for. Even scanning tunneling microscope does not guarrantee you that what you see is what you “see”. Measuring  tunneling-current density is not “seeing”. And do not even dare to forget the key name: Hillman (check out here)… It is not just a matter of not-enough magnification. It is a matter of “seeing what you like to see”…

And a second bonus tip: The fact that each model is more “accurate” than the previous one does not mean anything more than “we create the next model so as to fit better the observations”! It is the models who are created based on observations! and not models who happen to be more “accurate” because we “progress”… The difference is important. AFTER knowing the desired results, one can create a much more accurate geocentric model than the heliocentric we have now… (even though that would not be more “correct” – see Earth at the Center of the Universe?)

Exit mobile version