February 18, 2023.
Why cosmology, astrophysics, and theoretical physics have been stuck for 50 years.
The current "standard model" works only thanks to two ingredients: dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter, with positive mass, serves to ensure the confinement of galaxies and galaxy clusters, and to explain the flat shape of their rotation curves, in a totally ad hoc manner. Indeed, how is its distribution in space determined? Simply by ensuring that it reproduces these rotation curves. Millions have been spent, everywhere, attempting to capture it—in mines, tunnels, and in space. Thousands of articles have been published in top-tier journals, all of which are speculations about its nature. In vain. We tried to capture the candidate considered most probable, the neutralino, in one kilogram of xenon, then ten, then a hundred, then a ton, several tons.
No more neutralinos than there is butter on a pin.
Dark energy has been attributed a positive energy value and a negative pressure, which may seem paradoxical given that pressure (a scalar) is primarily a volumetric energy density. The law of the universe's expansion is derived from a solution to Einstein's field equation. The "source" of this dynamics is found in the right-hand side. It is a volumetric energy density rho c^2. We thus find two terms. There is first the term reflecting the action of mass, in accordance with Einstein's famous relation E = mc^2. The other term is pressure. All this is homogeneous, measured in joules per cubic meter.
What does this second term account for? In the matter phase, it accounts for the volumetric kinetic energy density of the masses composing the universe, according to the equation of state:
In the radiative era, in addition to the volumetric energy density of photons: h nu, multiplied by the number of photons per cubic meter, we have radiation pressure, corresponding to the relation below, equivalent to "an equation of state for the photon gas":
In accordance with Einstein's equation, the basis of General Relativity:
A positive pressure is synonymous with deceleration of the expansion motion.
Conversely, to account for an acceleration of cosmic expansion, we need something associated with a negative pressure.
If we consider that this pressure linked to dark energy is a volumetric energy density, this would lead to the conclusion that negative energy states exist (see the work of Nathalie Debergh).
But we bypass this through a sleight of hand, endowing this new component, of unknown nature, with an "equation of state":
The choice w = -1 (which nothing justifies) allows obtaining a positive equivalent volumetric density, in kilograms per cubic meter. This then allows completing the pie chart describing the content of the universe in observed masses, in non-observed positive masses—that of dark matter—and then in "matter-equivalent," translating (in kilograms per cubic meter) a mysterious repulsive power of the void, associated with the cosmological constant Lambda.
In the Janus model, what causes the acceleration of cosmic expansion is interpreted as the sum of two terms:
- The (negative) energy density associated with mass, according to E = m c^2, with E and m negative.
- A negative pressure, considered as a negative energy density associated with the negative kinetic energy of these same particles.
There is then a fundamental difference between these two interpretations. Since the cosmological constant is, as its name indicates, invariant over time, it corresponds to a mysterious repulsive power of the void which is then associated with a constant energy density, insensitive to the expansion movement and to the decrease in density linked to expansion. If a is the "scale factor," evoking the "size of the universe," any density of something will thus a priori vary as 1/a^3.
The corollary is that the universe, thus propelled by the constant negative pressure associated with the hypothetical "vacuum energy," expands according to an exponential law as a function of time.
In the Janus model, during the matter era, the dynamics of expansion are attributed to the majority content of negative mass: This negative mass then takes on both roles: that played by dark matter and that played by dark energy. This energy density then decreases as 1/(a^3). The future of the universe is then different. Deprived of this engine over time, its expansion becomes quasi-linear, tending towards an asymptote.
These two ways of seeing things would merit being put into perspective. We had composed a highly structured article, first sent to Physical Review D in November 2022. Immediate rejection, without submission to a referee, with the sole mention "not suitable." Second submission, to Astrophysical Journal. Same thing, on February 12, 2023, also with a refusal to submit to a referee. You will read the contents of these reply messages preceding the article.
In fact, journals have systematically refused to submit our articles to referees for the past five years. There have therefore been about ten rejections.
This marks a fundamental dysfunction of the scientific publication system. Yet these journals remain open to speculation. Two examples can be cited. For Physical Review D, let us cite an article where this figure of French cosmology, Aurélien Barrau (note the remarkable richness of his Wikipedia page), appears as a co-signatory.
What do the authors of this article propose? A model where dark matter could constitute the "relic" of collisions between "mini-black holes," situated "at the Planck epoch," that is to say, in the most remote state of the universe (inaccessible to any observation). Hypothetical "mini-black holes." Let us translate the title:
Dark matter as a relic of the Planck epoch, without too many exotic hypotheses (...).
Suggested tests, regarding possible observational data: none. A perfect illustration of the mathematician Jean-Marie Souriau's phrase:
- A physics without experiment and a mathematics without rigor.
Regarding dark energy, the scientific community has been in turmoil since the publication in Astrophysical Journal and Astrophysical Letters of two articles.
The first. The second. A science blogger gives his commentary here.
To simplify, on the blogger's page, listen to his audio commentary.
What is it about?
We have seen that the characteristic of this dark energy is to present itself as a component of constant volumetric density, insensitive to the phenomenon of cosmic expansion. Let us then consider objects that could reflect such content. For this energy density to be maintained, it would be necessary that, by an unknown physical mechanism, the dark energy they contain grows over time according to a^3.
The mentioned article reports a study of the masses of "giant black holes" located at the center of elliptical galaxies. This concludes that these masses grow as a^3. By what mechanism? History does not say. A priori, this does not seem to be by "accretion," by swallowing surrounding stars. This could not justify such a phenomenon insofar as the populations of stars in these elliptical galaxies remain, themselves, constant. What a phenomenon that smells strongly of dark energy! But, you might say, the mass of these giant black holes is positive. If their mass grows, it is... a growth in positive mass, isn't it?
You have understood nothing. Use your neurons and review the equation of state linked to this dark energy. The increase in positive energy at the heart of giant black holes entails, thereby, an increase in negative pressure. Have you understood? Positive mass means positive dark energy but... negative pressure. We already have models of "singularity-free" black holes that make use of all this.
You now know where dark energy is located: at the heart of giant black holes. All this being great trickery and strong magic (R. Kipling, "Just So Stories").
In science, one must reject nothing a priori, especially when the idea is based on something factual: the growth of the mass of hypermassive objects located at the center of elliptical galaxies. An observational fact that theorists, in any case, will have to take into account. This phenomenon of mass growth in giant black holes sheds light on their deep nature. Already, theorists struggled to model their formation by accretion, fusion of stellar black holes. Here, let us drop the accretion phenomenon, outdated. The problem is virtually resolved de facto. The mechanism that makes them appear, like rabbits out of a magician's hat, is the same as the one that ensures their growth.
It is simply an unknown phenomenon.
Let us return to the second refusal to submit our article to a referee. The response from Physical Review D is, in this case, unequivocal. However, the editor of Astrophysical Journal indicates that matching the data on the acceleration of cosmic expansion is not enough to serve as a basis for a model. It would need to explain other things. Noted. I therefore began a new draft, modifying the title of the submitted article, which would then become:
The Janus Cosmological Model. Part I: alternative interpretation of the acceleration of the cosmic expansion.
Which I will then follow with a second paper:
The Janus Cosmological Model. Part II: other successful comparisons to observational data.
The two papers will then be submitted at the same time. We will keep you informed.
Will we succeed in having these articles finally submitted to referees? I do not know.
What else?
The recording of the conference I gave in Paris on January 14, 2023, is online. As are the 60 minutes of questions/answers that followed. A release that took some time, when we received messages from participants who were worried about seeing their names and professional situations exposed. With good reason. A mass of memories then resurfaced, which I evoke in this short video:
It was therefore necessary to replace shots showing the speakers with shots showing the lecturer, replace the names of affiliated units with "beeps," blur images of my room, and faces. Measures that could reflect a tendency to see evil everywhere. In fact, if one wants to think freely, outside of all constraints emanating from a "scientific inquisition," one must engage in a form of clandestinity. I think of a gesture by William of Baskerville, played by Sean Connery in a scene from The Name of the Rose, when the Abbot, alias Michael Lonsdale, enters his monk's cell. William then makes a quick gesture, surreptitiously covering the astrolabe placed on his bed.
At that time, the slightest scientific investigation was disturbing, risking contradicting elements of church dogma and could lead you to the stake. Today it is the same thing, except that they no longer burn heretics. The "doctors of the Law," the "upholders of orthodoxy" are the "stars" of the relevant disciplines and set the codes of conduct, under penalty of heresy. Black holes exist. Hawking radiation exists. Dark matter and dark energy are part of physical reality. If protesters are no longer burned after being tortured, they are silenced in other ways.
Who runs these "top-tier journals"? Obviously, the upholders of the current orthodoxy. In this game of benefits gained from publishing in these prestigious journals, they and their students, their friends, are the first served. Their careers draw their source from citations in journals with high impact factors ("impact factor"). Any other channel is immediately relegated to the rank of "predatory journals" (often rightly so, it must be said). The system is wonderfully oiled: "You co-sign my papers, I co-sign yours. I cite your articles, you cite mine. The Google Scholar robot does the rest. Perfectly artificial reputations rise like whipped eggs, soufflés. People who will leave not the slightest trace in the history of science thus acquire planetary reputations. An example:
In Google Scholar, type "Juan Maldacena". You will immediately see papers rise such as "Cool horizons for entangled black holes" (1475 citations) or "Towards inflation in string theory" (1474 citations), "A bound on chaos" (1899 citations). Theoretical conjectures devoid of the slightest observational confrontation that earned him a permanent position at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, to which Albert Einstein and Kurt Gödel belonged until their deaths. Works that again evoke Souriau's phrase, cited above. But these people are authorities.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
For 50 years, theorists have found nothing, explained nothing, conceived nothing that is subsequently observed or highlighted by experiments. A striking example is string theory. Faced with its failure to predict or explain anything, people like the American Brian Greene, author of the global bestseller "The Elegant Universe," with its clumsy translation: "L'univers élégant," published in 1999, which even received the Aventis Prize at the time, rewarding the best scientific popularization book in science in 2000, even went so far as to claim "that if this theory was so sterile, it was because it referred to things that would only emerge in several generations."
An evocation that brings to mind the fable by Hans Christian Andersen, where swindler tailors dress a king in clothes so beautiful that only people of quality can see them. And in fact, the king is naked.
The system of reviewing scientific work by experts, whose independence of judgment is in principle guaranteed by the preservation of their anonymity, finds itself locked insofar as journals are held by the upholders of orthodoxy, which has succeeded in imposing itself as the criterion for the quality of work.
Forty years ago, there was a window, that of publications in the Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris. The decision to publish was then left to the discretion of the academicians. Thanks to the fact that the mathematician André Lichnérowicz presented notes, I had been able to initiate the beginning of a theory leading to a galaxy model, as an exact solution to a pair consisting of the Vlasov equation and the Poisson equation.
Here is one of these notes. It contains the first, and the first and only non-trivial solution to the Vlasov equation, dear to Cédric Villani. But suddenly this publication channel disappeared, the Academy of Sciences having installed a control system by anonymous referees. This decision-making power was immediately taken away from one of the most brilliant mathematicians of his generation by young wolves, none of whom will leave a trace on this road of science.
So, what did I do? I abandoned research directions, simply.
Do the math: it was 51 years ago. Not bad....
A few years ago, after months of waiting, I was able to have an appointment with Cédric Villani, then director of the Institut Henri Poincaré, not yet entered into politics. He arrived an hour late, listened to me distractedly, then promptly slipped away.
The Janus model disturbs enormously, provoking the aggression of this scourge of the Internet, those called "Trolls." But it is not only these characters who find, by posting their comments (more than a thousand in five days!), the possibility of expressing their neuroses, their frustrations, their jealousy, under the cover of anonymity. It seems that among them are "Epistemo-Trolls" who then express their fear of seeing the Janus model succeed in imposing itself, by formulating insults that serve as exorcisms:
- Petit is a charlatan, a mythomaniac, and a scammer!
The fight will continue, painful, difficult. But what is new is the mass of people from all horizons, mathematicians, researchers, engineers from prestigious schools, qualified teachers in mathematics or physics, teachers at all levels, who join discreetly the group of people who, concerned with ethics and truth, wish to find, far from all this "noise," in calm and clandestinity, the possibility of finally being able to think freely.