Are Laws of Physics Beyond Doubt?

Problems arise when attempting to explain the
physical world purely by methodological naturalism

 

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

The advantage of physics research is that there is zero evidence that the laws of physics have evolved. The equation for gravity has always been that any matter particle in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of their masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. And this law was true yesterday, today, and will be true tomorrow. The same is true with E=mc².  This equality relationship did not evolve and could not have evolved, or the universe would have ceased to function. These laws were true from the beginning of time, although scientists admit that the origin of these laws based on evidence is unknown.

One of the most eminent cosmologists of the last century, Steven Hawking, postulated that these laws literally sprang into existence along with ‘the Big Bang’.[1] This “springing into existence” implies that, once created, the laws of physics have not changed.[2] He agrees that “the laws of physics never changed. They are immutable and constant everywhere and for all time.”[3]

Within biology, the laws of physics have not changed either, but life has. To determine the extent of changes, the only information we have to go on are life at present and fragments of evidence of life in the past, such as remains of organisms trapped in amber and other fossils.

The Foundational Laws of the Material World

The basic laws of the atom are the fundamental foundation for physics and chemistry because the physical universe is constructed out of atoms. The atom is the basic building block of all matter. Anything that has a mass and occupies space is composed of atoms. In the standard model, atoms consist of positively charged particles called protons, non-charged particles called neutrons, and negatively charged particles called electrons. Particles with the same charge, such as two protons, are repulsed from each other. Conversely, particles with opposite charges, such as protons and electrons, are attracted to each other. The physical center of the atoms, called the nucleus, is made up of protons and neutrons, which, together, are collectively called ‘nucleons’. Last are the electrons, shown in the oversimplified illustration at right as circling around the nucleus.

Components of Atoms

The basis of all atoms are the fundamental particles called quarks. Six types exist, which have different mass and charge. These are up (u), down (d), strange (s), charm (c), bottom (b), and top (t) quarks. Six more types exist called antiparticles which are the complement of particles. For quarks they are anti-up, anti-down, anti-strange, anti-charm, anti-bottom, and anti-top. More particles exist than shown here, but for our purposes this simplified version below will suffice.

Four Forces Hold the Universe Together

According to the standard model, the four forces holding the universe together are gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

1. Gravity is responsible for keeping our feet on the ground and holding Earth in its orbit around the Sun. Although the weakest force, gravity works across almost infinite distances, and is responsible for the formation of the universe’s structure.
2. The electromagnetism force includes both electricity and magnetism. They are intertwined: a moving electrical field produces a magnetic field, and a moving magnetic field produces an electrical field.
3. The strong nuclear force holds together the building blocks of atoms. It always attracts, and functions at two different size scales in atoms. At the atomic level, the strong force holds together the protons to other protons and neutrons within the nucleus to form the elements. On a smaller scale, the strong force holds together the quarks that form the neutrons and protons. The strong force is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, and it is 100 trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity. Conversely, the strong force works over extremely small distances. At distances beyond the nucleus of a medium-sized atom (about 100 million times smaller than the width of a human hair), its effect quickly drops close to zero. The other forces at this distance are stronger.
4. The weak force is responsible for interactions between subatomic particles, the building blocks of matter, the protons, neutrons, and electrons. The weak force can change one quark type into another. Protons are made of three quarks, two up and one down quark. Neutrons are made of three quarks, one up and two down quarks. The weak force can turn a down quark in a neutron into an up quark, which would change the neutron into a proton. Changing a neutron to a proton would in turn change that atom into a different element with an atomic number one greater than the old atom. This type of action occurs in radioactive decay, which occurs when atoms spontaneously shed energy and subatomic particles. The weak force works on the smallest distance scales known, 1,000 times smaller than the strong force. It is close to a million times weaker than the strong force, but is still considerably stronger than gravity.

This is the model that I taught in college for over 30 years. In short, this is the orthodox materialistic view of matter, consequently the basis of all physics and chemistry.

It was challenged in the past by creationist David L. Bergman (no relation) who proposed a very different model, called the Spinning Charged (or Toroidal) Ring Model, which postulates that the view outlined above requires a major revision. This standard model has now been challenged by orthodox physicists as well. One of the latest challenges is by theoretical physicist Sonia Bacca at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. New experiments have resulted in a new measurement of the strong nuclear force, which binds protons and neutrons together. It “confirms previous hints of an uncomfortable truth: We still don’t have a solid theoretical grasp of even the simplest nuclear systems.”[4] Her research into the strong nuclear force is explained as follows:

To test the strong nuclear force, physicists turned to the helium-4 nucleus, which has two protons and two neutrons. When helium nuclei are excited, they grow like an inflating balloon until one of the protons pops off. Surprisingly, in a recent experiment, helium nuclei didn’t swell according to plan: They ballooned more than expected before they burst. A measurement describing that expansion, called the form factor, is twice as large as theoretical predictions…. The swelling helium nucleus …  is a sort of mini-laboratory for testing nuclear theory because it’s like a microscope — it can magnify deficiencies in theoretical calculations. Physicists think certain peculiarities in that swelling make it supremely sensitive to even the faintest components of the nuclear force — factors so small that they’re usually ignored. How much the nucleus swells also corresponds to the squishiness of nuclear matter, a property that offers insights into the mysterious hearts of neutron stars. But before explaining the crush of matter in neutron stars, physicists must first figure out why their predictions are so far off.[5]

The meaning of this finding is still being analyzed. If true “Bacca and her colleagues have exposed a significant problem in nuclear physics. They’ve found … an instance where our best understanding of nuclear interactions — a framework known as chiral effective field theory — has fallen short…. This transition amplifies the problems [with the orthodox theory of Adams] that in other situations are not so relevant.”[6]

One problem involves a bizarre property of the strong force.  In contrast to all of the other three forces, it becomes stronger with increasing distance until it reaches its limit, rather than deteriorating as do all the other three forces. Its limit is a distance only slightly beyond the nucleus of a medium-sized atom where its force effect rapidly drops close to zero. As I read this article, I saw another example of what I had thought was a solid theory begin to break down. The researchers concluded:

As with other nuclear transitions, only a specific amount of donated energy will allow the nucleus to swell. By varying the electrons’ momentum and observing how the helium responded, scientists could measure the expansion. The team then compared this change in a nucleus’s spread — the form factor — with a variety of theoretical calculations. None of the theories matched the data. But, strangely, the calculation that came closest used an oversimplified model of the nuclear force — not the [dominant] chiral effective field theory.[7]

Researchers are equally mystified at these results. The well-done experiment must be correct, opined University of Pisa physicist Laura Elisa Marcucci. The fact is, the experiment and theory contradict one another therefore, Bacca concluded, one of them must be wrong.

Summary                                                                                                                                  

This new research confounds the belief of materialists that the universe can be fully understood as the outcome of purely physical laws. A set of rules has been developed, called the “standard model”, which has produced a framework that is very successful in explaining the material world. However, the Bacca team has uncovered evidence that all is not right with the standard model.

Efforts to understand the existing physical laws have confounded researchers, which only highlights the difficulties of understanding the living world that Darwinian doctrine holds has evolved from non-life to life, then to the highly developed life-forms existing in the world today. The current materialistic framework, if this new research holds up under replication, may have to be drastically revised. How much more the Darwinian doctrine, which has far less to support it in terms of scientific laws?

References

[1] Collins, Sarah. 2018. Stephen Hawking’s final theory about the Big Bang. SciTechDaily, May 2; https://scitechdaily.com/stephen-hawkings-final-theory-about-the-big-bang/.

[2] Wilson, Alastair. 2022. The Big Bang: How could something come from nothing? SciTechDaily, January 19; https://scitechdaily.com/the-big-bang-how-could-something-come-from-nothing/.

[3] Thompson, Avry. 2018. Scientists stared at clocks for 14 years to try and catch the laws of physics changing. Popular Mechanics, July 27; https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a22575842/do-the-universes-rules-ever-change/.

[4] McCormick, Katie. 2023. A new experiment casts doubt on the leading theory of the nucleus by measuring inflated helium nuclei. Physicists have challenged our best understanding of the force that binds protons and neutrons. Quanta Magazine, June 12; https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-experiment-casts-doubt-on-the-leading-theory-of-the-nucleus-20230612/?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=64f51d3d84-briefing-dy-20230613&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-64f51d3d84-46838142.

[5] McCormick, 2023.

[6] McCormick, 2023.

[7] McCormick, 2023.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,300 publications in 12 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.