A chink in the Planck’s of science

Gene Fredericks

Part of Reflections of the Universe as I see it

Science by definition is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical world through observation and experiment. Discoveries and proofs of theories are an ongoing practice of science. But from time to time, some of the basic “laws” or well-defined theories are questioned, and it is often the case that the proofs and explanations about the basic tenet are modified, skewed, and even twisted to make the answer either match what is found or conform to what is desired.

Throughout history, the prevailing scientific wisdom has been confronted with undeniable evidence and facts that force science to change. One example is when scientists thought the world was flat. It was religiously taught and believed, and those who denied it or tried to prove it otherwise were shunned, ridiculed, or silenced permanently. Yet eventually it turned out that the world is pretty roundish. I find it ironic that some explain the shape of the universe today as flat, but that is for another story. Science once thought that the atom was the smallest thing and was the most basic indivisible unit. But of course, we have split the atom and many of the things that make up the atom and faced the God particle, only to see that there may be something in there!

One other thing that science likes is constants. They make the math easier and provide some comfort and safe places to hold onto. But what happens when those constants are challenged and possibly found to be incorrect? Scientists lose their safe place and, with what seems to be a religious zeal, they try to hold onto those convenient anchors and twist the interpretations in order to make tried and once true numbers fit. Like the speed of light as a not-to-exceed number or Planck’s constant of size, distance, and temperature, which are embedded in all sorts of formulas. But what if things could travel faster than the speed of light? Things could be smaller than 10-35. One outcome would be that the math no longer worked, and the answers would be unsatisfactory. Yet in experiment after experiment, the constant “c” has been exceeded. And, even though 10-35 is very small, I can imagine there could be something smaller. And it seems that the constants that govern black body radiation, which is Planck’s law has a limitation as well. 100 million million million million million degrees may be hot, but why couldn’t it be a bit hotter?

Throughout scientific history, the limits put on the universe have been proven false, and the dogma of science has needed to capitulate to the wonder of the universe. The search will always go on, and we will seemingly always need to hold on to something. But the universe does not like constraints, and I feel it is infinitely divisible and infinitely expansive.