Four different and intriguing areas of contemporary research in physics and cosmology are presented to characterize this age of science, and collectively to manifest the “spirit of the times”. These directions or new thinking have profound potential for scientific breakthroughs. Each is considered for hallmarks of a newly proposed criteria meant to challenge physics and cosmology researchers in the “historical philosophy” of their time. The results of this analysis and proposal provide guidelines for contemporary research standards that have bearing on the interpretation of the legacy of science investigation in this age, and possibly on the outcome of the very history of our time. “The authors” referenced in this Historical Review are Linda A. Morabito and David Meyer.
It is potentially true in this current age of science that it is no longer enough for science to depend upon a historical perspective of scientific research to take shape in future years of historical analysis. The amount of information available to the average person (any scientist) on Earth in regards to history and specifically the history of science, because of the Internet, not only predisposes scientists to gain perspective on their own ages of study; it may be mandatory that the responsible scientist now be versed in the factors which are at play in their own times of research. Possessing this attribute by what may be termed “visionaries” by some is perhaps as much a requirement for genius in contemporary times, as was the requirement to conduct “outreach” to the public about their work by scientists who used government money to conduct their research in their respective nations, that began en force some 40 years ago. Scientists may now be accountable to the world to seek the perspective of their work in their own age. The scientists whose work will be cited in this paper meet this profound definition of what a contemporary visionary scientist is.
There are four areas of research or directions of new thinking emerging in physics and cosmology that are notable to the authors (Morabito et al. 1979; Morabito 2012; Morabito & Meyer 2012). The first is in a search for the “Theory of Everything”: the insight that will link General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Since the development of this theory promises not only elegance on a scientific standard, “Everything” should perhaps extrapolate to the greatest mysteries of our time in astronomy, which include elucidating the phenomena currently called “dark matter” and “dark energy”, as well as shedding insight on the origin and ultimate fate of the universe. The second area of emergent new thinking appears to be the mix of cosmology with biology. Great minds around our planet are conducting research whose implication is that a “Season of Life” may exist in our universe. The third area of great elucidation, where greatest mysteries are falling away as petals from a maturing flower are in the area of what may be the most efficient instrument for change in our universe; the magnetohydrodynamic, black-hole-spin jets, and outflows, produced from the “engines” of accreting black holes. And finally, another area which could potentially be identified with an emergent new thinking will be briefly touched upon, as it may be in the earliest stages of infancy in this age of science. It pertains to re-envisioning the coexistence of science and religion since the beginning of the modern age.
2. A Universe Filled with Dark Matter and Dark Energy In Need of a Graceful Exit
Scientific courage in the modern age displayed by those who are self-aware of a conspicuously absent factor in contemporary science can perhaps be exemplified in the reporting of negative research results. It has been recently determined that “failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already investigated by other scientists (The Economist 2013).” A researcher who has fully faced this issue in his own time is Mikhail Shifman, one of the leading theorists in supersymmetry.
Shifman displays the characteristics of a visionary in his own time. He describes the events he saw take place in his own career prior to 1972 and after (Shifman 2012). He points out that prior to the advent of the Standard Model and quantum chromodynamics, “experiment was an ultimate judge of what was important in theory and what not…” Then he points out that in 1974, “experimental guidance started to fade away… The role played by experiment continued to decrease steadily for quite some time, until it became almost invisible.”
In terms of High Energy Physics in the present-day theoretical community, Shifman decides, “…each novel idea, once it appears, spreads in an explosive manner in the theoretical community, sucking into itself a majority of active theorists, especially young theorists. Naturally, alternative lines of thought by and large dry out.” Then, because of the lack of experiment data, instead of understanding natural phenomena, “…a new novel idea arrives, the old one is abandoned [“…crucial difficult [theoretical] problems are left behind unsolved”], and a new majority jumps on to the new train.” No one has the benefit of reference points provided by experiment.
Supersymmetry itself came into existence as a theoretical construct for many reasons, including the fact that any Theory of Everything based upon it, might indeed be extrapolated to further understanding of dark matter. Supersymmetry predicts that the lightest of the superpartner particles, which are predicted by supersymmetry, would be stable and provide a “sensible candidate for dark matter.” This superpartner, a neutralino, could be the long sought after dark matter particle, whose existence is inferred through its gravitational interaction with ordinary matter we observe in the universe today.
Shifman says the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson (as predicted by the Standard Model) shocked the entire community of supersymmetry phenomenologists. Beyond that superpartners to particles as predicted by the phenomenologists were not seen. Shifman points out, “A simple and elegant idea [stemming from supersymmetry phenomenologists]… turned out to be in contradiction with data!” And, “Of course, people do not easily give up on their dreams. They hasten to modify [Supersymmetry (in the framework of Witten, 1982; the basis for supersymmetry in phenomenology)]… in a contrived way to keep it viable.”
Shifman writes that “…theoretically supersymmetry is a beautiful concept”, but the phenomenology that arose from it was not supported by the data from the Large Hadron Collider, and “was and still is less than elegant.” He finds great value in the opportunity for young researchers consequently to develop new ideas, and furthermore he contends, theoretically it has led to a powerful [mathematically speaking] way to deal with quantum field theory, as well as leading to far-reaching consequences in the understanding of gauge theory.
String theory based on supersymmetry phenomenology raised expectations in physicists for a “Theory of Everything.” (This term would apply to conditions in the early universe when the four forces of the universe, including gravity, acted as one force.) The heights of these expectations according to Shifman were unsustainable. Shifman directs that “…string theory… exhibits a very rich mathematical structure and provides us with a new, and in a sense superior, understanding of mathematical physics and quantum field theory.” It led to advances in field theory when not ascribed to explain “Everything”. It has even led to supergravity and a holographic description of such in condensed matter coupling. However, Shifman cautions, a current path in that regard is also a “solution in search of a problem”: a dead end.
String theory as Shifman points out has degenerated to an anthropic principle, an out of desperation response to the failure to find a unique solution for our world. It predicts everything and in that sense, nothing. This “landscape” paradigm “…is an act of belief in today’s string theory, not supported by any evidence, and not to be supported by evidence in the future.” Indeed, the Standard Model continues to be supported by collider results that have been obtained subsequent to the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs boson.
It gets worse! According to Shifman, there are “…2500 to 3000 [active high-energy] theorists. The majority of them are young theorists in their thirties or early forties. During their careers many of them never worked on any issues beyond supersymmetry-based phenomenology or string theory. Given the crises (or, at least, huge question marks) we currently face in these two areas, there seems to be a serious problem in the community. Usually such times of uncertainty as to the direction of future research offer wide opportunities to young people in the prime of their careers. It appears that in order to take advantage of these opportunities a certain amount of reorientation and re-education is needed. Will this happen?”
This visionary has placed his own research and that of thousands of others in historical perspective. He ends with a question because it is likely that the reorientation and re-education may not happen in the historical context of this age of science of our time. Up to the present time of publication of this historical review by the authors, Cern physicists are continuing along their stated path to uncover inconsistencies in the Standard Model through a virtually 30 plus year plan, without specifically conceding the failure of string theory to match any of data results to date and the logical need to reformulate their hypotheses.
This leads the authors to perhaps the greatest visionary physicist of our time, former Cern physicist Dragan Hajdukovic. In the context of Shifman’s visionary words, because of the nature of High-Energy-Physics in the present-day theoretical community, without reference points provided by experiment, “… alternative lines of thought by and large dry out.” Perhaps they do so, because with the overwhelming numbers of theorists sucked into string theory (as characterized by Shifman) new ideas are not encouraged to see the light of day. Dragan Hajdukovic of Montenegro has put his work into historical context by the life he has lived trying to present his alternative line of thought (Hajdukovic 2013a).
What is his line of thought? What has he accomplished? For nearly a decade, Dragan Hajdukovic has presented a “Theory of Everything” which unifies the quantum world with the effects it has on the macroscopic universe described by General Relativity. Hajdukovic is not the only theorist who has proposed alternatives to supersymmetry-based phenomenology. Even though his ideas are in their infancy, his is exclusively the most far reaching of all alternatives to String Theory. As String Theorists had hoped to do, Hajdukovic’s work leads far beyond the unification of General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. His ideas provide profound resolution to the mysteries of what “dark matter” and “dark energy” actually are, and to a cosmology that is not in need of a contrived “graceful exit” (a contrived reason to stop) from a necessary period of rapid cosmic inflation during the first moments the universe existed, in the currently accepted Big Bang model of how the universe began. Beyond that, his concepts explain why our universe is made of matter and not anti-matter (Hajdukovic 2010b, 2011c, 2014b). Hajdukovic is a genius because he has made these profound breakthroughs at a time when he has been forced to do his research in the world of String Theorists, in which “alternative lines of thought by and large dry up.” Imagine if your research was trying to thrive in an environment where its destiny had been constrained to not exist.
As Shifman directs, “…string theory… exhibits a very rich mathematical structure and provides us with a new, and in a sense superior, understanding of mathematical physics and quantum field theory,” specifically phenomenology speaking: 1) developed in the absence of reference points from experiment, 2) in complete disagreement with current experimental results, and 3) by the anthropic principle, with no testable predictions now or in the future. Hajdukovic’s work, however, is based not on mathematics in the absence of testable predictions, but on his hypothesized physical properties of the universe (Hajdukovic 2014b).
When matter and anti-matter virtual pairs come into existence in the Quantum Vacuum, they do so, Hajdukovic proposes, with opposite gravitational charge of gravity for the matter and anti-gravity of the anti-matter. Unlike electrically positive and negative charged particles, like gravitational charged particles attract, while opposite gravitational charged particles are repulsive (Hajdukovic 2014b).
The resulting virtual gravitational dipoles in the Quantum Vacuum experience varying degrees of polarization depending upon local or density and configuration of ordinary matter immersed within it. Hajdukovic therefore proposes we live in a universe in which ordinary matter is everywhere immersed in this sea of gravitational dipoles (Hajdukovic 2014b).
Not only is a new state of matter “Quantum Vacuum” defined by Hajdukovic’s work (Hajdukovic 2014b), the resulting local and global effects on ordinary matter respectively, delineated by Hajdukovic’s theory, solve the mysteries of both what is now called “dark matter” and what we refer to as “dark energy.” In the case of dark matter, Hajdukovic’s gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum explain the enhanced gravitational effects we observe in galaxies and clusters of galaxies without the need for a dark matter particle, and matching from first principle derivations of his theory the empirically observed distributions of dark matter in galaxies (Hajdukovic 2008, 2010a, 2011b, 2012a, 2013b). In the case of dark energy, now considered a currently unknown anti-gravity effect causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, Hajdukovic’s gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum explain: 1) the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe today, and 2) predict the graceful and progressive exit from that acceleration, as the Universe ages (Hajdukovic 2008, 2010a, 2010c, 2012b). For the first time in the history of science in our contemporary age, the Quantum Vacuum solves the “Cosmological Constant problem”, as Hajdukovic predicts the exact order of magnitude from his theorized gravitational properties of the Quantum Vacuum that is observed today (Hajdukovic 2014b).
In every respect, Hajdukovic’s work is elegant, and places the realm of a “Theory of Everything” into comprehensibility; a characteristic of fundamental simplicity endemic to the best theories scientists have for smaller scale workings of the universe today. The cosmology that emerges from his breakthroughs, based solely on physical properties of the universe rather than untestable mathematical constructs that offer no predictions, addresses the weakest aspects of the Big Bang theory about the origin and eventual fate of our universe (Hajdukovic 2010b, 2010c, 2011a, 2011c, 2013a, 2014b).
Among the many testable predictions of his theories is one that defines Hajdukovic’s place in history in his own time. Far from the Sun, in our own solar system, where relativistic effects can be ignored, a non-Newtonian component should emerge as a shift in the orbit (perihelion) of a minor planet moon around the minor planet in the UX25 system. This prediction if observed will verify Hajdukovic’s premises (Hajdukovic 2012c, 2012d, 2014a). A team of Italian astronomers will take this precept forward to try to detect this shift in observations of the UX25 system that will be taken by both orbiting telescope resources and earth-based observations using adaptive optics. Only a few years worth of data at most is needed to see the validation of Hajdukovic’s work (Gai & Vecchiato 2014).
Which scientist among us could survive in the contemporary historic climate that deems their research cannot exist? Hajdukovic’s work defines the age in which it has been created. Shifman, a competing researcher, has shed the light on what this age of science research in physics and cosmology holds. It can be considered, as we will discuss below, through analysis of the contemporary work and self-awareness of minds as great as Shifman’s and Hajdukovic’s that the outcome of this age of science can be influenced in real time.
In regards to Hajdukovic’s premise of virtual gravitational dipoles in the Quantum Vacuum, particle physicist Thomas J. Phillips writes, “The assumption of repulsive gravity between matter and antimatter simultaneously solves the mysteries of the missing antimatter [(the fact that we live in a universe composed of matter and not anti-matter)], dark matter and dark energy – replacing them with the challenge of how to fault all the arguments that have led us to believe that antimatter gravity is attractive. This assumption will soon be tested by the antihydrogen experiments, and if they discover that gravity is repulsive between matter and antimatter, I predict that physicists will quickly find this should have been obvious. Perhaps it already is and we just don’t realize it yet (Phillips 2014).”
3. A Season of Life in the Universe
A landmark work in regards to the ages of flourishing biodiversity on Earth was written by Henrick Svensmark in 2012 (Svensmark 2012).
His reasoning goes like this: Too many very nearby supernova explosions and with the cloud cover from a deluge of cosmic rays released by catastrophic stellar deaths, and you get a snowball Earth! The lowering of ocean levels from that kind of deep freeze is not good for biodiversity on the oceans, and so biodiversity on Earth falls, on short-term scales.
But, too few supernova explosions, a little further out from our solar system’s galactic neighborhood, and accounting for the positive effects of a high sea level as set by plate tectonics over time, and you do not get biodiversity in our oceans, and this is on very long term scales! To put it plainly, the times on Earth when biodiversity flourished in our oceans, leading to our evolution, depends solely upon supernova explosions in conjunction with high sea levels set by plate tectonics, and on absolutely nothing else! Who could have ever imagined this superlative example of how events in the universe are related and dependent upon one another, even over the vast distances of space?
Indeed, the deaths of stars were needed to spawn the 2 percent of materials heavier than hydrogen and helium in our universe, from which we are made, but beyond that you can forget life on Earth flourishing to the degree to support our existence without those neighborhood stellar explosions, specifically of massive stars!
This discovery is elucidated when comparing the biodiversity of life in Earth’s oceans to the abundance of such supernova explosions, once the biodiversity from the raising of ocean levels from plate tectonics has been factored out. The correlation to supernova explosions is so profound that it cannot be explained any other way. It literally eliminates any other factor, if this discovery becomes theory in this era of our science.
Here is further insight into how Svensmark says it works: The increase in cosmic rays hitting the Earth is not just modulated by our Sun, but over long periods of time, the increase in cosmic rays from supernova explosions seeds clouds. The cooler temperatures and increase in weather cause good nutrient circulation throughout the oceans. Life on Earth in the oceans increases in biodiversity and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the oceans falls. Why? Because there is so much life that photosynthesizing organisms start using it all up. And, during photosynthesis, ocean water is broken releasing oxygen. There’s a higher oxygen rate, which other life, such as our own lives, on Earth depends upon!
When supernovae explosions in our neck of the woods decrease, just the opposite happens. Fewer clouds, less reflectivity of sunlight before it reaches the ground, warmer temperatures, less weather, and pretty soon nutrients in the oceans are used up without that greater circulation. Carbon dioxide builds up in the atmosphere because there is not enough photosynthesizing life in the oceans to use it up, and as a result, with less photosynthesis occurring there is less water split into oxygen, and less oxygen for creatures like us who depend upon it. Such times would also correspond to a decrease in Carbon-14 on the Earth, whereas the aforementioned conditions where life flourishes from a high supernova rate would increase the Carbon-14.
What would cause a supernova rate in our neck of the woods to increase or decrease? Star formation rates in open clusters would determine that, and that is dependent upon where our neck of the woods is compared to the disk of our galaxy, where star formation takes place. In addition to our Sun orbiting the center of the galaxy, our star (and countless others in the disk) cyclically rises above and below the plane of the galaxy disk. When passing through the spiral density waves – places of star formation – the birth and therefore the fairly nearby death of stars takes place.
So, if scientists begin to adopt his thinking, star births and deaths control the Earth’s long-time climate change and the biodiversity rates on Earth. It wasn’t carbon dioxide levels warming the Earth; carbon dioxide levels are directly correlated to climate change and biodiversity rates, but do not cause it. Life like ours may depend upon a “Goldilocks zone” of neighborhood dying stars, not just a habitable zone of distance from a mother star.
Svensmark displays genius on many levels in this work, but one level, the focus of this review, is historical perspective. Svensmark puts forth his assertions in the age of suggested “human-induced” global warming by man-made activities introducing too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and therefore the authors can conclude that his self-awareness of what is accepted theory by many and in direct contradiction to the derivable breakthroughs he made implicit to his theory, are irrefutably known to him in his own age.
Any statements in regards to “human-induced” global warming are controversial in today’s world. Using the standard in the previous section of this paper that cites the foundations of a scientific perspective premised on a result not supported to date in data, many predictions in regards to the aforementioned global warming have also not been supported by data.
Although there are many claims that predictions by the global warming science community have not borne out, it is necessary to find reliable sources as to the claims that have been made. First-hand accounts of this information are challenging to locate and unfortunately as a result have become somewhat anecdotal. But, real-time descriptions of these facts do exist.
The claims of climatologists are focused on here. Any omissions below are to focus on the claims of identified climatologists and/or their research organizations, being reported in real time.
Radio Free Europe reported in real time on 13 October, 2005 that “the United Nations is warning that tens of millions of people around the world are at risk of becoming refugees because of environmental breakdowns in their parts of the world. A report just issued by the UN University estimates that up to 50 million people could be on the move by 2010, seeking refuge from hunger, droughts, floods, and exhausted soils. …
“Professor Janos Bogarti is the Head of the UN University’s Institute of Environment and Human Security in Bonn, Germany. He says desertification, rising sea levels, flooding, and storms related to climate change could displace millions. …
“Climate change is believed to be based on the buildup of so called greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, which trap the heat of the sun in the atmosphere (O’Rourke 2005).”
Another reliable historical reporting by a news agency is the actual report commissioned by the Pentagon and leaked to that agency, again as reported in real time. The UK’s The Observer reports on 21 February 2004: “Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents. …
“As early as next year  widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions. … Senior climatologists, however, believe that their [aforementioned] verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing [the United States President]… to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change. A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. …
“Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading [the United States President]… to accept climatic change. Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed (Townsend & Harris 2004).' “
In historical perspective, the document is indeed important.
A final reliable report, by the UK’s The Independent, prior to a change in perspective by climate scientists, as reflected in the previous report summary that indicates the belief that Britain will be plunged into “Siberian” – like conditions is as follows: 20 March 2000. “Britain’s winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives. Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries. …
“Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. …The warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers.
“According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
“"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said (Onians 2000).”
The aforementioned predictions have not materialized across the globe. As evidenced in the summary of Global Warming implications commissioned by the Pentagon from the predictions of the most trusted climate scientists of the time, the Climatic Research Unit later responded to the dramatic increase in snow in years subsequent to the aforementioned prediction concerning the elimination of snow from Great Britain, by claiming the severe cold was also an effect of global warming.
A theory that predicts record heat named for its prediction (Global Warming) and also record cold when the record heat does not materialize, originally predicting only record heat, predicts therefore everything, and therefore nothing. Once again as previously cited in the previous section, such statements are to the exclusion of any degree of concession that original research and data interpretation that prompted these predictions have failed to match actual data and need to be revised.
A further implication of Svensmark’s work beyond the relationship of the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as an effect of climate change rather than a cause, is the existence of “a place” where the supernovae explosions integral to the biodiversity rise of life in Earth’s history occur; a galactic zone where life like ours can develop. In the case of the one data point we have; specifically, that we are life on Earth, this implication pertains to being within the spiral density waves of the galactic disk as opposed to above or below the plane of the galaxy disk. Here, where star formation takes place, one can therefore reap the necessary benefit of the death of stars in supernova explosions, which follows their births. In reference to the only data point currently available to us, our own living existence on Earth, spiral galaxies, which have disk components, may be considered to be the necessary home for life like ours to come into being in the universe – specifically large spiral galaxies.
Currently in the visible universe, enormous amounts of matter are locked away in huge elliptical galaxies, which are dead and red; the most massive of which have come into being through mergers with other galaxies or through the collision of two large spirals. In the early universe, such collisions triggered starburst levels of star formation and supermassive black hole growth. There is evidence as will be covered in the next section of this paper that such supermassive black holes now are not able to grow stars or their own mass dramatically through collisions of galaxies in clusters, but are rather in a maintenance mode to lock the necessary conditions for star formation away from these large elliptical galaxies (Kormendy & Ho 2013).
Additionally, a few researchers are now proposing that it takes intelligent life like ours exactly as long as the universe has been in existence to develop (Sharov & Gordon 2013; Sasselov 2012). Given that the amount of supernova explosions which are theorized to have played an enormous part in our emergence on Earth could currently most likely exist in the relative stability of large spiral galaxies and not where starburst levels of supernovae explosions might otherwise be too close to reap a positive correlation with the rise of biodiversity of life on Earth, or simply cease with no star formation taking place, we could potentially conjecture that a “Season of Life” in the visible universe has come to pass. Because our galaxy is headed for a collision with the large spiral Andromeda even before our Sun leaves the main sequence, becoming part of the transformation to a large elliptical galaxy in the future, this Season of Stability for life like ours may be coming to an end. Even further conjecture is possible about the nature of the universe during a contraction phase of the universe. Contraction is predicted by Hajdukovic’s new model of the universe (Hajdukovic 2014b).
4. An Efficient Mechanism for Change
The authors submit that historical perspective self-awareness within a scientist’s own time in regards to a selected area of research is a foundation for genius. In a researcher’s own time, if an area of research has been selected to which one devotes their career that may ultimately yield some of the most profound insights into the nature of the evolution of our universe, such researchers have met the criteria for profound contribution to their time. Stand-alone these researchers do not need the historical perspective that will come from time. Their dedication will break down barriers of understanding at a highly accelerated rate, and this is the importance the authors assign to the current research on the behavior and role of supermassive black holes in the universe, their accretion and magnetic properties of the disks of material that form around them, as well as their jets and outflows. The authors contend these researchers already know the importance of their work in our understanding of the evolution of the Universe.
It is not possible to make an exhaustive search of the scientific literature to cite every scientist who should be mentioned here for their current contributions to that work, as some might be inadvertently missed. There are many. The authors choose to concentrate on the innovative and sustained work of Jonathan McKinney, Aleksander Sadowski, Ramesh Narayan, and Alexander Tchekhovskoy,
Three of the above researchers in regards to “Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole” from the abstract: “We describe global, 3-D, time-dependent, non-radiative, general-relativistic, magnetohydrodynamic simulations of accreting black holes (BHs). The simulations are designed to transport a large amount of magnetic flux to the center, more than the accreting gas can force into the black hole. The excess magnetic flux remains outside the BH, impedes accretion, and leads to a magnetically arrested disc. We find powerful outflows.” They go on to describe that with black hole spin parameter 0.99, more energy flows out from the black hole in the form of jets and winds than flows in. “The only way this can happen is by extracting spin energy from the BH… via the Penrose-Blandford-Znajek mechanism.” They suggest that magnetically arrested accretion might explain observations of active galactic nuclei with apparent efficiencies of greater than 100% (Tchekhovskoy et al. 2011).
Two of the above researchers with two other researchers in 2013, explore that evidence shows that feedback from supermassive black holes plays a crucial role not only on galaxy scales, but also on the scale of galaxy clusters. There is always an active supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy clusters, and it keeps the cluster gas hot and prevents further star formation. This feedback occurs via relativistic jets. Inside the Active Galaxy Nuclei host galaxies, feedback tends to be in the form of winds that can deposit all their energy and momentum in the interstellar medium of the galaxy. The winds are responsible for most of the mass outflow. The jets, which are strongly collimated, are extremely important on the largest scales, specifically galaxy clusters (Sadowski et al. 2013a).
The long-duration general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations provide the necessary insight to characterize the winds and the jets in terms of their solid angles, sub-relativistic and relativistic natures respectively, their power especially with rapid black hole spin and large magnetic flux, and their respective degree of dependence on black hole spin and the black hole magnetic field (Sadowski et al. 2013a).
More recently, all four researchers are conducting the first general relativistic simulations of super-critical black hole accretions, which has the potential to increase the understanding of tidal disruption events (when a supermassive black hole eats a star) and hyper-accreting supermassive black holes in the early Universe. It is a great mystery how supermassive black holes could become so large, so quickly (Sadowski et al. 2013b). Two of the above researchers, with two other researchers show that in magnetically arrested accretion discs, a global magnetic field inversion can “destroy the jet, significantly increase the accretion rate, and move the effective inner disc edge in to the marginally stable orbit.” Reconnection from the accretion of opposite polarity field results in a new type of relativistic outflow from a black hole accretion disc, a transient flow which can be as powerful as the steady magnetically dominated jet the researchers have previously modeled in magnetically arrested accretion disks. This opens the area of study to how the magnetic field configurations can influence an accretion state directly (Dexter et al. 2013).
Additionally, all four researchers are now involved with three-dimensional general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamical simulation of super-Eddington accretion, using a new code tool. Their current simulations suggest that “black hole growth over cosmological times to billions of solar masses by redshifts of z ~ 6-8 is achievable even with rapidly rotating black holes and ten solar mass black hole seeds”; shedding profound elucidation on this mystery of how black holes could have grown to sizes we observe throughout the evolution of the Universe (McKinney et al. 2014).
Even with such a cursory introduction to the simulation and theoretical development and breakthroughs of these researchers, it becomes clear that supermassive black holes regulate in efficient ways all the change that does or does not take place in the evolution of the universe. It has recently been observed through NuSTAR that our own supermassive black hole in the Milky Way experiences stochastic heating events (Barrière et al. 2014) which serve to keep star formation lower in our galaxy right now, so that perhaps our precious time and place of stability does not contain too many supernova explosions; just the right amount to have us come into being, and to allow us to mature.
It has also been recently reported that there is a significant drop in the average value of supermassive black hole spins in the universe at z < 2 (Volonteri et al. 2013). Additionally, it has been proposed that the era in which major galaxy mergers help to build the mass of the black hole in step with the mass of the spheroidal component of the host galaxy is already ending. “We have entered a time when the correlations [the black hole mass correlation with the luminosity, mass, and velocity dispersion of the host galaxy given also the new realization that black holes correlate in different ways with different components of galaxies] slowly erode as mergers transform stellar disks into bulges without concurrent black hole feeding (Kormendy & Ho 2013).”
It remains to be determined what trigger events might cause a supermassive black hole to once again permit gas to cool and return to the galaxies from which it was prevented from forming new stars, as the Universe ages. Our inability to project such circumstances is as limited as were our perceptions prior to understanding that jets and outflows of supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies and in the centers of galaxy clusters actually control the evolution of the universe. In light of Hajdukovic’s assertion that the universe is in fact closed based upon the changing density and distribution of matter in our expanding universe, which is immersed in gravitational dipoles from the quantum vacuum, a contraction phase of the universe is inevitable (Hajdukovic 2014b). If the current age of delicate balance to achieve a “Season of Life” is in fact an even loosely viable description of our current epoch, it seems as if the progression of this universe has journeyed toward cosmic life nurseries. After they are achieved, what is to say that the journey of contraction could not hold such a delicate balance in store for the universe once again? Indeed, the expansion journey seems to have manifested instruments of efficient change and efficient lack of change in supermassive black hole engines, to the point where their obvious control upon universe evolution is inescapable.
What wonders await us in discovery through simulations and observations, we can only imagine as time continues along its arrow, possibly bringing a future to the Universe that in ways symmetrically resembles its past. If that is a viable premise then another season of growth ironically measured in contraction perhaps, could await this universe, until another cycle begins.
5. A Truly Grand Unification
It is possible that rehashing the age old differences between science and religion across future millennium may be a poor use of the historical perspective we as scientists might possess by the amount of information about the history of science that is currently available to everyone on the Internet. It seems as if attempts to do so, however, at least on the scientific side are appearing in a real-time perspective of our age, expressed by many scientists who have also discovered the circumstances in their own lives that allow them to also be religious (Ross 2001; Chappell & Cook 2005) The authors suggest there are indications that scientists would like to somehow unify the two disciplines to some degree within themselves and for others, a direction of thought that seems to be emerging perhaps more than at any other time in the history of science. Many attempts to do so are based upon seeking in-depth scientific insights in Biblical statements of Scripture from the Bible.
However, science and religion are by their natures far from identical. They address different human needs and quite possibly a different hierarchy of meaning. Therefore any attempt to match a particular section of the Bible one-to-one to the discovered physical workings of the universe is not so much pointless as perhaps ineffective. Indeed, as well those who are religious very often do not have understanding of the value of science whatsoever.
A purely scientific life in current times if lived, places scientists in an uncomfortable position that they don’t speak about or share. There are moments in the existence of any scientist when the very scope of the universe and existence in relation to how dwarfed humanity is in stature and comprehension gets through the busy schedule and the research challenges we embrace, which rigorously consume our time. I defy any scientist on Earth to deny this happens to them.
A purely religious life is set in tone by those who are both skilled and accomplished in their doctrine as ordained servants of God, against the precepts of the science community. They (scientists) place investigation before God, is the thinking, and they don’t listen to what the Bible says in regards to all scientific matters, for example creation and evolution. Interestingly, however, they may not find fault with a medical doctor for the most part using his or her skills as learned in medical school fully during an operation. Especially an operation they must have or a loved one of theirs. It is quite possible that the skills of scientists need to be considered in that same context as also needed, and should be fully embraced by society as are the skills of medical doctors. Without science and engineering pursuits, even digital imaging would not exist for medical diagnosis.
So, should the age-old conflicts between science and religion continue to exist and be impenetrable to the contemporary scientist or the religious faithful of our time? Perhaps genius in this age would be the scientist who begins to take a step and see an interpretation of the differences between science and religion as something not to be overcome, but to be better understood than ever previously before in history. Since these disciplines are so different, perhaps the attempts to unify them that frankly do not even interest most people, are due to be reconsidered in this age of trying to attain historical perspective as a goal to be an effective scientist and an effective member of society.
The answer to the conflict between science and religion is not likely to be found on anybody’s home court perhaps. It may be a problem to be solved with insights of a much higher level of thinking than has been attained by humans in the past. What lofty expectation do the authors have of human beings in this regard? Only that they might seek a higher level upon which to address such an important issue!
6. Conclusions and Discussion
One of the premises of this historical review is that with the explosion of availability of historical information at this date in history when the Internet is no longer in complete infancy, scientists may be required to discern their position in history in real time. Perhaps this is the definition of genius in this age of science: a scientist who is both a researcher and self-aware of his or her place or role in this age in which their research is done, without need or ignorance to depend upon historical philosophers to interpret that place or roll in future epochs with respect to the past.
There is a great outcry from many sectors in science and in our populace as to what has happened to science when researchers deny the failure of their theories and do not practice the very precepts of science which mandate a reformulation of hypothesis when their predictions or premises are not found in data acquired to either validate or negate their premises and predictions.
The authors contend that there is nothing wrong with science whatsoever. When researchers do not accept the failure of their theories or premises to match actual data and do not openly discuss the implications of that failure and the need to modify their theories or beliefs, then that is not science.
Given the amount of historical perspective one can attain from reading even a modicum of historical information about science available to any person, researchers who do not conduct themselves in a manner consistent with science are not scientists. Furthermore, scientists or other people who commit fraud or misrepresent, deny, or conceal their own claims to further personal funding and influence should be culpable.
It is perhaps mandatory in this age of instant information about the history of science that researchers form a historical perspective on the place their research has in their own time. If their goals are not consistent with science, which is a method of investigation, then their dishonesty has far reaching effects addressed throughout time about the corruption of science. To plead ignorance in this age of nearly instant information is not possible.
Because of this shifting paradigm for scientists the public too has a new responsibility. That is to heed the mistakes of history, and first that includes knowing what the mistakes were and not repeating them. The populace needs to be skeptical and not assume that science is their entertainment. It is worthwhile, enjoyable, and challenging, but if science becomes entertainment, then historical perspective is lost.
Theories that do not meet a standard of proof or evidence or are inconsistent with observation or vetted data, should not be held onto because of an aesthetic appeal or the persona or attraction of a nicely named or well described idea in the popular science media. Ideas which have not reached the status of theories and which do not match observations or data taken to validate their premises and therefore their viability and which either do not have predictions or fail in their predictions, should not be held onto by the public or otherwise because of their lack of their historical perspective. If the purpose of science were entertainment it would not be science, but rather some form of self-gratification that reflects a lack of perception and responsibility by those who seek it.
Scientists who are both self-aware of their place in history in their own time and are contributing to scientific research, can perhaps change the outcome of conflicts with those who express ignorance in regards to the dishonesty of their theories, by the boldness of the example expressed by a giant like Shifman. Shifman can imagine that there is something much worse than the very difficult prospect of going back to the drawing board after having taken a very, very wrong and long mistaken turn. That would be to not know or recognize his place in history in his own time, and to profess not to know what science is.
Barrière, N.M. et al.; NuSTAR detection of high-energy x-ray emission and rapid variability from Saggittarius A flares. Astrophysical Journal 786, 46 (2014)
Chappell, D.F., Cook, E.D.; Not just science: questions where Christian faith and natural science intersect. Zondervan (September 11, 2005)
Dexter, J. et al.; Transient jet formation and state transitions from large-scale magnetic reconnection in black hole accretions discs. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 440, 2185-2190 (2014)
Gai, M., Vecchiato, A.; Astrometric detection feasibility of gravitational effects of quantum vacuum. arXiv:1406.3611v2 (2014)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Dark matter, dark energy and gravitational properties of antimatter. arXiv:0810.3435 (2008)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; A few provoking relations between dark energy, dark matter and pions. Astrophys. Space Sci. 326, 3-5 (2010a)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; What would be outcome of a big crunch? Int. J. Theor. Phys. 49, 1023-1028 (2010b)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Dark energy, antimatter gravity and geometry of the Universe. Astrophys. Space Sci. 330, 1-5 (2010c)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Can the New Neutrino Telescopes Reveal the Gravitational Properties of Antimatter? Advances in Astronomy 2011, 196852 (2011a)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum? Astrophys. Space Sci. 334, 215-218 (2011b)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Do we live in the universe successively dominated by matter and antimatter? Astrophys. Space Sci. 334, 219-223 (2011c)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Quantum vacuum and dark matter. Astrophys. Space Sci. 337, 9-14 (2012a)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Quantum vacuum and virtual gravitational dipoles: the solution to the dark energy problem? Astrophys. Space Sci. 339, 1-5 (2012b)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Can observations inside the Solar System reveal the gravitational properties of the quantum vacuum? Astrophys. Space Sci. 343, 505-509 (2012c)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Trans-Neptunian objects: a laboratory for testing the existence of non-Newtonian component of the gravitational force. arXiv:1212.2162 (2012d)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; The signature of new physics, astrophysics and cosmology? Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1350124 (2013a)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; A new model of dark matter distribution in galaxies. Astrophys. Space Sci. 349, 1-4 (2013b)
Hajdukovic, D.S.; Virtual gravitational dipoles: the key for the understanding of the universe? Physics of the Dark Universe 3, 34-40 (2014b)
Kormendy, J., Ho, L.C.; Coevolution (or not) of supermassive black holes and host galaxies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 51, (2013)
McKinney, J.C.; Three-Dimensional general relativistic radiation magnetohydrodynamical simulation of Super-Eddington accretion, using a new code HAMRAD with M1 closure. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 441, 3177-3208 (2014)
Morabito, L.A., et al.; Discovery of currently active extraterrestrial volcanism. Science 204, 972 (1979)
Morabito, L.A.; Discovery of volcanic activity on Io. A historical review. arXiv:1211.2554 (2012)
Morabito, L.A., Meyer, D.; Jets and accretion disks in astrophysics – a brief review. arXiv:1211.0701v3 (2012)
Onians, C.; Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. The Independent (20 March 2000)
O’Rourke, B.; UN: experts say natural disasters may create up to 50 million refugees. Radio Free Europe (13 October 2005)
Phillips, T.J.; Antimatter: Out of the darkness. Nature Physics 10, 473-474 (2014)
Ross, H.; The Creator and the cosmos. Reasons to Believe (2001)
Sadowski, A. et al.; Energy, momentum and mass outfows and feedback from thick accretion discs around rotating black holes. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 436, 3856-3874 (2013a)
Sadowski, A. et al.; Numerical simulations of super-critical black hole accretion flows in general relativity. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 436, 3856-3874 (2013b)
Sasselov, D.; The life of Super-Earths: how the hunt for alien worlds and artificial cells will revolutionize life on our planet. Basic Books (January 24, 2012)