The Unexplained in Physics

"A somewhat rash philosopher, I think Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, said: There are a lot of things in heaven and on earth of which there is nothing in our Compendiis. If the simple-minded man, who, as is well known, was not in his right mind, was jibing at our Compendia of Physics, one can confidently answer him: Well, but then again, there are a lot of things in our Compendiis of which there is nothing in heaven or on earth."

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)

Most laypeople admire physics for the insights that famous names such as Galileo Gallei, Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have produced. Physics has also gained great recognition among philosophers of science, whose approach has often been recommended to other scientific disciplines for imitation. On closer inspection, however, the state of knowledge in physics is really not so good. The aphorism quoted at the beginning by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, who held the first chair of experimental physics at Göttingen University 250 years ago, probably also applies to today's physics textbooks.

While chemistry essentially rests on a uniform theoretical foundation, namely the chemical bonding between the atoms of the various elements of the periodic table, this is not the case in physics. The theories of physics stand side by side like solitary blocks. The theory of relativity and quantum mechanics differ from each other in their basic conceptual assumptions and mathematical formulation to such an extent that it has not yet been possible to establish a quantum theory of gravity and probably never will be. Other theories run into contradictions - for example, when you try to calculate the rotational energy associated with the spin of an elementary particle using the formulas of classical mechanics or to determine the intrinsic energy of an electrically charged particle in its own field. You hear about these problems when studying physics, but you are strongly warned not to delve deeper into them, as" this leads nowhere and only detracts from productive engagement with solvable questions."

When quantum theory and the theory of relativity emerged at the beginning of the 20th century, there were heated discussions about their interpretation because these theories challenge our intuitive understanding of space, time, matter and causality. However, the success of these theories in explaining previously misunderstood phenomena such as atomic spectra and predicting new effects such as the deflection of light by the sun meant that subsequent generations of physicists became accustomed to the oddities and accepted the mathematically sophisticated theories as extremely useful tools. Anyone who nevertheless expressed doubts was advised to “shut up and calculate”!

Over time, physicists have gotten out of the habit of questioning their now widely accepted theories and testing alternative explanatory models. Here is an illuminating example of this: Since the 1930s, it has been observed that stars in the outer regions of galaxies move faster than they should actually do due to the gravitational attraction of the stars located in the interior of the galaxy. It is therefore assumed that large quantities of invisible “dark matter” exist in the halo of galaxies, although this has not yet been directly observed and would have to consist of as yet unknown particles. The existence of “dark matter” is therefore by no means certain, as is usually made to believe, but a mere ad hoc assumption that should always be suspect to an observer trained in the philosophy of science and should motivate the search for alternative explanations. Not so in contemporary astrophysics. Instead of a broad search for a wide variety of explanatory approaches and a critical appraisal of their respective advantages and disadvantages, there is only one alternative explanatory approach - a modification of Newtonian mechanics, which is also ad hoc and is only advocated by a handful of scientists who are treated as eccentrics by the scientific mainstream.

If one examines physical knowledge with a knowledgeable but unbiased eye, one encounters a wealth of peculiarities and oddities. Since it has often been the case in the course of the history of knowledge that inexplicable findings and logical contradictions have become the starting point for new considerations, we are convinced that an examination of the peculiarities and contradictions in today's physical knowledge can lead to new explanatory approaches.

We have already taken a closer look at some of the oddities and suggested unconventional solutions:

• Electric Charges of Elementary Particles: The standard model of elementary particles recognizes 48 fermions, which are divided into three generations, each with two quarks and two leptons, whose electrical charges show a regular pattern. Do these regularities perhaps point to an underlying inner connection?
• Rotational Energy of the Spins: In classical mechanics, every angular momentum is associated with rotational energy. Can it therefore really be the case that the quantum mechanical intrinsic angular momentum of the elementary particles (spin) does not require rotational energy?
• Rotation period of 720° of the Spins of Fermions: The fermions, which as elementary particles form the material building blocks of the universe, have the extremely bizarre property of only being identical to themselves again after two complete rotations of 720°. How can this be reconciled with our human experience that the world appears identical to us after just one 360° rotation?

However, the list of peculiarities and oddities is much longer. Here are a few suggestions for you to think about:

• Why does our universe contain almost exclusively matter and hardly any antimatter?
• Why do W bosons only interact with left-handed particles and right-handed antiparticles?
• Why does the photon have no at-rest mass, while the related Z boson has a large at-rest mass?
• When the Z boson decays, why do the decays into pairs of neutrinos and antineutrinos that are not directly observable occur twice as often as the observable decays into other particle-antiparticle pairs?
• Are the values of natural constants such as h, c, G or e purely random?
• Why can the laws of motion in all areas of physics be derived from the principle of least action?
• What drives the expansion of the universe?
• What constitutes the NOW?

Recommended reading:

• Pavel Kroupka, Marcel Pawlowski und Moritz Haslbauer: Blog zu Dunkler Materie und der alternativen Erklärung über eine Modifizierung der Newtonschen Dynamik (MOND-Theorie)
• Willi Kafitz: Wahrheit und Realität - Gedanken zu mathematischen und physikalischen Grundsatzfragen, Oberhessische Naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, Gießen 2024.
• Ilja Bohnet und Thomas Naumann: Das rätselhafte Universum, Kosmos Stuttgart 2022.
• Alexander Unzicker: Auf dem Holzweg durchs Universum – warum sich die Physik verlaufen hat, Hanser München 2012.