http://www.micro-world.su/ Folder English

Announcement.

A philosophical statement “Truth is born of arguments” is one of the greatest misconceptions of the scientific truth searchers. Each of them thinks that only he is right. But there is only one truth.

________________________________________________________________

A process of our thinking forms the basis of a scientific truth search. It is based on the meaning of the concepts, which are used by us, as well as of the rules of their unification in the logical structures, which we use when we try to understand or to prove something. A correspondence of the pronunciation of the concept and its spelling plays an important role.

In order to have similar understanding of the concepts being used, we try to define them. Here we are faced with an obstacle, which is old-established, but remains unnoticed: a sense capacity of the concept being used. It is the main barrier not only in the similar understanding of the concepts, which are used by us, but in consensus building of the similar understanding of the essence, which is expressed with the help of the old-established concepts.

Let us consider the concept of “a point”, for example. This concept has a very limited meaning. That’s why it can be easily defined; the following definition was given by Euclid in the 3rd century before Christ: a point is that which has no part. But such definition is ambiguous, because it becomes necessary of give a definition of “a part”. If we begin to define “a part” via other concepts, it becomes necessary for us to define them too, and we’ll do it endlessly; it means unambiguously that it is impossible to give the most precise definition, which requires no additional specifications, to any concept. It appears from this that all definitions of the scientific concepts are not unambiguous, they are close to unambiguousness. As the notional capacity of the concept of “a point” is very small, the Euclidean definition of this concept is used in the scientific investigations successfully. Besides, it turns out that the main thing here is a formation of an image, which is described by the concept, not the definition of the concept itself. The concept of “a point” forms approximately one and the same image for everybody, the image, to which we get accustomed from the school years when we put a point at the end of a sentence.

Euclid was unable to form some concepts with similar clarity as he did it with the concept of “a point”; that’s why their use did no form a clear understanding of the essence, which they had. For example, he represented an idea that the parallel straight lines cross nowhere in the following way: “If a straight line crossing two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side, on which are the angles less than two right angles”. It is difficult to understand unambiguously the sense of this definition. As a result, it became a subject of the analysis made by the scientists of exact sciences of the 19th century who failed to come to a common opinion. Now it is well-known that incompleteness of this scientific dispute is the main source of all delusions of the physicists-theorists of the 20th century.

Thus, capacity of meaning of the scientific notions is the first and the foremost subject of analysis for those who try to see perceive the scientific truth. Let us consider the most capacious concept of “matter”. It includes such abundance of features of the thing, which we call matter, that it excludes an unambiguous definition of this concept completely. This circumstance forms automatically the conditions, under which everybody who uses this concept forms his own view of its notional essence. The majority of other concepts, which are used by the scientists in their scientific search, are in the same position.

Let us pay attention to the process of an adoption of the decision concerning correctness of some roundup assertion by our brain. As a result, which is in the roundup assertion, depends on many factors, which exerts influence on it, our brain tries to select the main one among them and to use it as an assertion fidelity criterion. It appears from this that in order to expedite cerebration in a solution of this task, it is necessary to introduce into its memory the maximum possible quantity of information concerning the factors, on which depends an optimality of the decision being adopted. But in any case the decision, which is adopted in such a way, is far from the scientifically substantiate decision, because thousands of factors, which have various dimensions and various quantitative values, can exert influence on a result of this decision; nobody can tell, which of them exerts the greatest influence on an authenticity of the decision being adopted. That’s why such decision is called an intuitive one, i.e. the decision, which has no scientific substantiation. Proximity of such decision to the optimal variant depends on quantity of the factors, which are included into a search of the optimal decision, and on capability of the brain to solve such tasks. A concept validity determination procedure being described is a concern of the philosophers, politicians and other people who are far removed from exact sciences. It can be easily observed when you watch broadcast reportages, which are devoted to an adoption of the important state decisions.

If we consider exact sciences, we should note that there are fewer liberties in a scientific result reliability assessment. Science has already worked out the unambiguous criteria of the assessment of reliability, i.e. validity, of any scientific result. A scientific truth is a scientific result, which is expressed in the form of an axiom or a recognized scientific postulate. We should note the main fact right away: the number of the scientific axioms is considerably fewer than the number of the recognized scientific postulates.

Let us add a definition of a concept of a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is an unproved statement. It can be proved theoretically and experimentally. Both these proofs should not contradict the axioms and the recognized postulates.

Thus, an axiom is the main criterion of the scientific investigation result reliability. It is not in need of a proof of its judicial functions and of their recognition. It exists everlastingly and is indifferent to the attitude of the scientists to it.

The main principle of the scientific truth search requires a revelation of the formation start of the notions concerning a phenomenon or a process being studied. That’s why an ascertainment of the primary elements of the universe and their main features is the beginning of the fundamental scientific search. It is obvious that space is the primary element of the universe. If it were no space, nothing would exist.

Matter is the second significant element of the universe; time is the third one. An ascertainment of the axiomatic features of the primary elements of the universe (space, matter and time) is the next step in of the fundamental scientific search. Their stability and dependence or independence on each other as well as their interaction are the axiomatic features of space, matter and time.

The main axiomatic feature of space is its absoluteness: invariability in the course of time. There are no facts (and there will be no facts), which prove compressibility, stretching and twisting of space. This makes it possible for us to consider space an absolute element of the universe.

The axiomatic feature of matter, the second significant element of the universe, is a more complicated thing, Still, we do not know exactly a source, which brings forth the material objects; we do not know their final destiny. That’s why yet we have no reason to consider matter an absolute thing, because we do not know if the electron, the proton, the neutron, the photon exist everlastingly or they can loose their structures and masses.

Time is the third significant element of the universe. It was introduced by a human being as an instrument of cognition of the surrounding world. Flow evenness is its main property. There is no one who will change its flow, except the human being who has introduced the concept of “time”, which does not change a rate of its flow. Due to this fact, time will always remain such. That’s why we have every reason to consider it an absolute one.

The next axiomatic features of a complex of the first three elements of the universe are their independence on each other and inseparability of the process of their mutual existence. Matter can exist only in space together with time. We shall call these axiomatic features of space, matter and time the primary elements of the universe, a space-matter-time unity axiom, or simply the Unity Axiom. We should note that a process of implementation in the mathematical models, which describe the material object motion in space, is the main thing in this axiom, not its definition. The Unity Axiom states that a coordinate of a non-permanent position of any object in space is always (we shall repeat this word for the relativists not once) a time function. Maybe, they will understand that time independence of the coordinate in Lorentz transforms, Louis de Broglie equations, Schrodinger equations, Maxwell equations, Dirac equations, Einstein equations and their numerous followers is at variances with the Unity Axiom, which sends the above-mentioned theories to the science history shelf automatically [1].

Thus, we have ascertained the main axiomatic features of the primary elements of the universe. They are sufficient enough at the present stage of development of our knowledge concerning Nature in order to use them in the scientific search.

Certainly, when the scientific truth is ascertained finally and brings forth no contradictions, it must be accepted, and we should proceed. But this privilege appears in science not at once; it takes place as a result of a long-term process of the accumulated knowledge generalization. We live in time of an uprising of such scientific privilege, and we commiserate with the scientists of the 20th century who were deprived of it and propagated scientific theoretical fables on a great scale and number.

If a scientist who searches for the scientific truth is armed with the axioms, which are the absolute criteria of scientific reliability as well as the well-tried postulates, he will see the contradictions in the results of the existing scientific investigations inevitably. Certainly, his main task is to find the causes of the contradiction uprising in the scientific problem being analysed. When he does it, he relies on the scientific result reliability criteria, which have been tested by him. As he accumulates new scientific information, he forms safe conditions for fruitful intuitive operation of his brain. Under such conditions, the brain searched for solutions by itself. It eliminates the contradictions being found out and gives a non-contradictory scientific result in the form of a guess, which we call intuitive, to the author automatically.

Pertinently, we should recollect the famous Archimedes exclamation “Eureka” when he bathed. Eureka meant that he dawned upon an essence of lift force of water affecting a body, which is immersed in it. Archimedes' principle appeared. Other laws of physics took place in the same way in the form of guesses, which became either the axioms or the postulates later on. It is no mere chance that the names of almost all axioms and postulates reflect belonging to their authors.

Thus, scientific truth is never born of arguments. Figuratively speaking, it escapes from the disputants as a frightened bird; it comes to those who have managed to load his brain with authentic information given by his predecessors. If the brain is loaded with erroneous information, it prevents a new scientific truth nascence in it.

Let us consider the role that is played by an intuition in exact sciences. In exact sciences, the intuition plays a decisive role, and its fruitfulness is implemented not in all of them. This implementation takes place in the following way. In the process of education, our brain accumulates scientific information paying attention to the laws and the postulates, in which it is generalized. These laws and postulates are the main criteria in the estimation of a connection of any new scientific result with reality.

If a criterion is erroneous, an interpretation result of the new scientific result will be erroneous as well, but a person who represents this result cannot find it. Now let us imagine that he takes up an argument with a person who has found erroneousness of the postulate, which is used by everybody as a scientific assertion reliability criterion. What will take place?

They will not understand each other, as they have different assessment criteria of the connection of the new scientific result, which is discussed, with reality. Where is the way out? It is the only one: it is necessary to return to the analysis of reliability of the postulate or the law, which is born in mind by everybody as a proof of his right in the scientific argument, but each of them fails to understand that it is necessary to begin a truth elucidation with the analysis of reliability of this postulate or this law.

It is quite natural that the argument process being described will never lead the disputants to scientific truth. In what way does it come to the scientists? It comes only to some of them; the most fundamental scientific truth, which remains reliable for millennia, comes only to those who have started their scientific search with the analysis of the scientific concepts, on which they have based their scientific assertions and have tried to give them the unambiguous definitions. Euclid and Newton acted exactly. It is the main cause of the fruitful implementation of their scientific ideas.

But it is quite natural that at that time Euclid could not see all main points of the scientific search, which should be included in the number of the initial axioms, and did not give definitions of the concepts of the axiom and the postulate. As a result, a list of his axioms has no main axiom, which reflects a description of the material object motion process [1].

When Isaac Newton solved a problem of the mathematical description of the material object motion process in space, he started with a formulation of the axioms and did not give a definition of this concept as well. Besides, while enumerating his laws, he put the law of the uniform, straight-line motion, which is always a consequence of the accelerated motion, on the first place. As a result, the consequence has turned to be ahead of the cause, and it has disturbed the cause-and-effect relations at once; it has led to the fundamental contradictions in his laws, which have remained unnoticed for more than 300 years [1], [7].

Scientific truth cannot be born of arguments, because the disputants have different notions concerning a notional essence of the concepts being used; this essence depends on their notional capacity. Different notional capacity of one and the same concepts in the heads of the disputants is the main obstacle on the way to consensus building in similar understanding of the gist of the subject-matter of dispute. This feature of a scientific discussion has been vividly described by Leonid Ivanovich Ponomarev in his popular book “Under the sign of quantum”. He describes the essence of the scientific disputes in quantum physics in the following way: “Sometimes these disputes resemble hostilities of the religious sects inside one and the same religion in their fierceness and intransigence. None of the disputants doubts the existence of the god of quantum mechanics, but each of them imagines his god, and only his. As it is always in the religious disputes, no logical reasons are useful here, because the adversary party cannot conceive them: there is the primary emotional barrier, the act of belief (in his reliability criterion, we should add), against which break all irresistible proofs of the opponents having failed to be introduced into the scope of perception” [12].

An insufficient investigation of the process of thinking, which is formed by our brain, is one of the causes of it. A language, on which the search is conducted, exerts a great influence on the process of thinking, i.e. on the process of the scientific truth search. If the language is replete with exceptions from the rules, on which it is based, it is unfit for the scientific search, because its exceptions do not help to form a non-contradictory scientific assertion. The brain, which is loaded with the concepts in such language, cannot form a system notion concerning an investigation object. In this case, its positive scientific result can be obtained very rarely.

The Russian language is the most fruitful scientific language. Its astonishing positive feature is in the fact that it connects the pronunciation of the words with their spelling reliably; a complexity of the declensional endings of its words is compensated completely by consistency strictness of an assertion, which is produced at that.

The English language has to be recognized as the most unfruitful language for the scientific analysis, because it is abundant with various types of exceptions from the rules and is based on the studied phrases being used in the communion as the clichés, which require no efforts to provide a control of consistency of the assertion being expressed.

Those who keep up with a construction of the phrases in the Russian language and the English language while watching TV will note easily that the Americans express their thoughts glibly, without any stammering. It is a sequence of the use of the studied phrases as the clichés.

While answering the questions, the majority of the Russians stammer and stumble in their speech; it proves that their brain does not use a set of the studied verbal clichés in the answer. They try to strengthen consistency of their answer taking into consideration a particularity of the asked question by means of a construction of the corresponding verbal logical structure. In this case, stammering as well as stumbling is a vivid demonstration of a might of the Russian language, not its disadvantage.

There are more weighty proofs of the might of our language. The specialists know that Albert Einstein devoted many decades to intensification of his theory by means of a fusion of its components. Its essence was in an intention to work out a so-called Super-Integration theory. Many scientists of the world being encouraged by a might of Einstein’s scientific authority enlarged by mass media tried to solve a problem of the Super-Integration, which was not solved by Einstein. But it could be done by a scientist who thought in Russian, the most logical language of the earthlings. That’s why we have every reason to be proud of the fact that it has been done by Vladimir Semenovich Leonov, the Russian scientists. Though he was not an academician, he managed to solve the complicated theoretical scientific problem in such a superb way that the Cambridge University published his book, which contained 650 pages devoted to the quantum theory of the Super-Integration [10]. It should be added that Vladimir Semenovich has remarkable human merits, which have been given to him by his ancestors who have accumulated them by their behaviour within the framework of the Christian morality. I am proud by the fact that I am acquainted with him though our friendship is a long-distance one.

It is quite natural that Vladimir Semenovich has based his investigations on Einstein’s achievements, which erroneousness is a historical fact. A decision of the American scientists to produce a film called “Einstein was at fault” serves as a proof of it. The magnificent mathematical result, which has been obtained by Vladimir Semenovich Leonov, is a bitter proof of erroneousness of using the authority of the predecessors as a base, because they have used erroneous criteria in the reliability assessment of their achievement by themselves. We should congratulate V.S. Leonov with the fact that his scientific work is a splendid proof of the might of the Russian language; we wish the Englishmen to study his Super-Integration quantum theory deeply. It will help them to close another 20 per cent of physical faculties when 20 percent have already been closed; it proves unpopularity of the imposed physical paradigm, which has no connection with reality, among the youth.

There is another example. There are numerous theoretical scientific works devoted to an intensification of understanding of the physical essence of Maxwell equations. The final stage of this intensification has fallen to the share of Viktor Vassilievich Sidorenkov, the Russian scientist. It is quite natural that he is not an academician, he is an ordinary scientist. The academic elite is incapable of such scientific feats. I enjoyed mathematical logic when I read his splendid work “Conceptual analysis of the equations of the modern field electromagnetic theory” [11]. Nobody managed to carry out deeper analysis. The might of our native language is one of the reasons of it. I received only one letter from Viktor Vassilievich, and it proved his splendid human merits as well.

As for his theoretical achievements, it is quite natural that they are erroneous, because they are at variance with the Unity Axiom, the foremost axiom of natural science. It is not the main thing. The achievement of Viktor Vassilievich is the main thing by itself. We have every reason to congratulate him with the fact that his theoretical achievement is a proof of the scientific might of the Russian language.

We shall not speak about an ability of our academicians to prove erroneousness of the new theory of microworld. Many of them fail to keep up with the scientific progress. Vladimir Semenovich and Viktor Vassilievich have knowledge, which allows them to make an attempt of such proof, but they have informed me in the correspondence that they do not accede to discussions. Viktor Vassilievich has written: “My motto is: Truth is not born of arguments!” In my answer, I informed him that the essence of this motto became clear for me more than 30 years ago. I promised him to publish a generalized description of this essence. I think that I have kept my promise.