Sergio Bartalucci

Sergio Bartalucci
Empirical Science
versus
Ironic Science:
The case of
Unconventional Nuclear Fusion
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
1
Sergio Bartalucci
J. Horgan* and “The End of Science” (1996)
*Senior writer of Scientific American 1985-1997
Interviewing great contemporary scientists:
Instead of asking what the laws
of Nature are and how we can
use them, we ponder why the
laws of Nature are as they are,
and ask whether they could be
otherwise
(L. S usskind)
from K. Popper to T.Kuhn
from S. Weinberg to J. A. Wheeler
from S. Hawking to R. Penrose
from F. Crick to R. Dawkins
from N. Chomsky to J.Eccles
from M.Minsky to M. Gell-Mann
from I. Prigogine to F. Fukuyama
Epistemology and Mathematics, Physics,
Cosmology, Cybernetics, Evolutionary
Biology, Neurosciences, Social Sciences,
Futurology….
For the most part these over-reachers have only one option: to pursue science in a speculative, nonempirical mode that I call Ironic Science
This resembles literature or philosophy or theology in that it offers points of view, opinions, which are, at
best, "interesting" which provoke further comments and questions, but
it doesn’t go beyond the knowledge we have already, so it doesn’t converge on the truth
The end of science: ironic science is its most evident symptom
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
2
Sergio Bartalucci
Scienza Empirica
si pone sempre e comunque in contrasto
con i paradigmi vigenti e risponde alle domande
Leonardo e Copernico
Galileo e la caduta dei gravi
Planck e le proprietà statistiche della
radiazione
Einstein e il concetto di azione a distanza
Heisenberg e il principio d’indeterminazione
Kuhn’s Cycle (1962)
The structure of scientific revolutions
Paradigm
Chi impone un nuovo paradigma si erge sulle spalle dei
giganti per dare loro un colpo in testa (I. Newton)
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
Anomaly
Crisis
Revolution
Acceptance
Paradigm Shift
3
Ironic Science
Sergio Bartalucci
It completely agrees with all our present knowledge, but it asks questions which do not allow us to
respond:
it seems purpose-built for escaping falsification, so it is not scientific, according to Popper’s rule
Examples from Horgan’s book
Evolutionary Biology: R. Dawkins, S.J.Gould, L. Margulis (Gaia
hypothesis with J.Lovelock)
Fundamental Physics and Quantum Cosmology: Superstrings (E.
Witten), Inflationary Universe (A. Linde), and Theory of Everything (S.
Hawking)
but also
Extradimensions, Supersymmetry, Quantum Gravity, Grand
Unification Theories , Multiverse
For most Cosmology puzzles (the fine tuning of density of universe Ω0, cosmological
constant Λ) there are only two solutions: either the parallel universes or
the anthropic principle!
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
4
Sergio Bartalucci
Inflazione co(s)mica (1981)
The cosmological constant Λ
represents a repulsive force
which inflates the Universe
in ~ 10 -35 seconds!
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
5
Sergio Bartalucci
Ironic Science ≠ Ironic Method, which instead was often the right way to the truth
,
/
ειρωνεια
Modo d’interrogare altri fingendo di non
sapere, onde sminuirne la sapienza e facendo
risaltare invece la propria verità
Non mi sembra che tu sappia che chi si trovi a ragionar con
Socrate, come capita, ed entri in conversazione con lui,
qualsiasi sia il soggetto della discussione, è trascinato torno
torno ed è forzato a continuare finchè non casca a render conto
di sè, del modo in cui ha trascorso la sua vita; e una volta che
c'è cascato, Socrate non lo lascia prima di averlo passato al
vaglio ben bene e in ogni parte.
Platone, Lachete
SALV. Ora ditemi, signor Simplicio: quando Aristotile si trovasse costretto da evidentissime esperienze
a permutar in parte questa sua disposizione ed ordine dell'universo, ed a confessare d'essersi ingannato
in una di queste due proposizioni, cioè o nel por la Terra nel centro, o nel dir che le sfere celesti si
movessero intorno a cotal centro, qual delle due confessioni credete voi ch'egli eleggesse?
SIM P. Credo che quando il caso accadesse, i Peripatetici...
SALV. Non domando de i Peripatetici, domando d'Aristotile medesimo; ché quanto a quelli so
benissimo ciò che risponderebbero. Essi, come reverentissimi ed umilissimi mancipii d'Aristotile,
negherebbero tutte l'esperienze e tutte l'osservazioni del mondo, e recuserebbero anco di
vederle, per non le avere a confessare, e direbbero che il mondo sta come scrisse Aristotile, e
non come vuol la natura; perché, toltogli l'appoggio di quell'autorità, con che vorreste che
comparissero in campo? E p erò ditemi pure quel che voi stimate che fusse per far Aristotile medesimo.
SIM P. Veramente non mi saprei risolvere, qual de' due inconvenienti e' fusse per reputar minore.
Ironic Science can never be falsified, so it has some
affinity with Academic Science
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
6
Sergio Bartalucci
Ironic Science is not cheap
INFN activity on theoretical physics (as from the 2007 Activity Report and PT):
700 full time equivalent (FTE) researchers (100 INFN employees, 350 University profs.,
140 postdocs and ~ 250 postgraduates) where the sector ‘Field and String Theories’ is
the most important with 200 FTE and 840 k€ funding (salaries not included!)
But there are more than 1000 theoretical researchers around the world working on it!
Great difficulty in String theory as Theoy of Everything with not a
single prediction since 30 years from its start (M. Serone, SISSA)
Still there’s no possibility of experimental verification, neither on
present nor on future facilities (like the Int.l’ Linear Collider) !
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
7
Sergio Bartalucci
Unconventional Fusion
Hot, Cold, Lattice-enabled, Low energy, Condensed Matter,
Electro-weakly induced, Sonofusion, …..
Just one definition: unconventional fusion or modern sorcery or pathological
science
But which one is the true non-science?
The ironic or the empirical science?
U.F has certainly the character of the empirical science, even too much!
Excess heat in experiments and Plasma formation in the theory
are the only common denominators; the seldom observed
particle production can be only a secondary effect.
More than theory, the real missing is phenomenology.
No significant progress can be expected without any theoretical scheme, even
the most simple, elementary, naïve, physics-textbook-like or, on the contrary,
heretical and outrageous, that may drive the scientific revolution of 3rd millennium.
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
8
Sergio Bartalucci
“È sorte comune delle nuove verità cominciare
come eresie e finire come superstizioni” (T.H. Huxley)
With most of dominant physics are we already in the
superstition era? Can we go beyond standard QM and
Relativity?
If a new scientific revolution is to occur nowadays,
it can’t be driven but by the heresy of
unconventional nuclear fusion
20 Aprile 2009
COHERENCE 2009
9