The article is devoted to the story of the one non-correct scientific paradigm

What is it about?

I am glad to inform you that I received a positive response from an outstanding scientist (Galwey, Andrew Knox, h-index - 33). We wish him many years of health and efficiency. Dear Professor Gregory Brauer, I must start with an important and sincere apology for the long delay in responding to your welcome and interesting E-mail, dated more than two months ago. During the recent months, I have had a number of problems that have upset my ability to respond to E-mails and I am aware that the long absence of a reply from me is very bad. I can only say ‘Sorry’ in a meaningful way. Since the New Year I have had some illness, that is now getting better, slowly. I was absent from home for some time, without my computer. I also have had problems with the computer that are now partially repaired. I will start by expressing these many apologies and hope to be a better correspondent in future. Your article interests me very much indeed and I agree that the Arrhenius Equation is used incorrectly in many papers, reminiscent (as you point out) of phlogiston. To support your comments, I will point to two places. First is the quote, attributed to Max Planck ‘Science advances one funeral at a time’. In other words, progress can only be made whenever those people holding a ‘popular’ (but incorrect) opinion about a scientific law have ‘passed on’. But to return to the Arrhenius Equation, as you mention, I have published about four papers pointing out the errors of using this to interpret kinetic data for thermal reactions of solids. They have been almost entirely ignored in the recent literature, which is not acceptable. I am in the process of writing another, with an American Co-Author, to publish in a more prestigious Journal. The point I want to make this time is that most of the ‘literature’ in my speciality field appears in a limited range of Journals. Consequently, these Journals publish within the accepted ‘theory’ which is demonstrably incorrect. If the referees are in ignorance of the truth then the ‘science’ that appears is of no value, in fact, it devalues ‘science’. I think you will agree. I did enjoy reading your article and wish you well in its publication. What is science if it is not self-correcting? I think we both know the answer to this question but what can we do about it other than to publish corrections and hope some people notice eventually......... Thank You for your letter, it was more than welcome. My delay......Sorry. I send Every Best Wish to You Personally, Sincerely, Andrew. On the one hand, this paper turned up from the author's desire to write a little-volume popular science series book about my own scientific interests field. The book whould include several topics, in particular, the history of combustion theory in general with different anecdotic stories (about and, especially, the USSR Academy of sciences), the Arrhenius equation and an intricate and deceptive history of SHS (self-propagating high-temperature synthesis, i. e. story of Merzhanov's "solid flame"). In this connection, it is worthy to noted, that the many problems of high-temperature and non-equilibrium burning were very popular a half century ago. For example, even the future Chancellor of Germany, Angelina Merkel, was engaged in radiation chemistry, and her doctoral dissertation was devoted precisely to the "comparison" of the so-called statistical and kinetic reaction rate constants (this problem is until now very interesting for the field under consideration. One of my friends in that time got his Ph.D. in MIPT with dissertation, having an almost same title. But in fact, my message concerns the very complex questions about the change of paradigms, ontologies, methodologies and other concepts of unusual scientists' ears. In 1962, the American historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, suggests that wrong paradigms can "last as long as they please". Kuhn writes that even if the scientific community as a whole is imbued with a spirit of tolerance, double standards of argument operate in it. Judgment in support of the "paradigmatized" ontology is perceived in the context of the "yes-strategy", and any attempts to justify "heresy" in the context of "no-strategy", etc. In addition to the need to restore order in the practice of calculations on the theory of combustion, the author hopes that the information changes that took place in 1962, when the T. Kuhn formulated his hypotheses, and now it is possible to carry out more quickly change the wrong scientific paradigms (probably, such problems exist not only in chemistry). We are talking about the fate of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the new law on science being prepared in Russia and, of course, world science in general. I'll try to briefly retell the article, although it's already very short. The history of combustion science begins with a short excursion into the daily Greek and Chinese culture. Next, we are talking about a story with phlogiston associated with the names of German chemists Johann Joachim Becher and Georg Ernst Stahl and the Frenchman Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, ending with his sad fate Lavoisier, a nightmarish story. The mention of the phlogiston theory is given in view of certain analogies with the current situation that has arisen with the development of the of combustion processes modeling. Now, unlike the times of Lavoisier, the level of the many processes study is much higher. But the so-called Arrhenius equation became the original "phlogiston" of the 20th century. Further, I gave a stories about this equation appearance and the cases of Svante August Arrhenius life (for example, how he poisoned the city and argued his scientific hypotheses). At the beginning of the 20th century, profound changes in the understanding of the structure of atoms and molecules took place, and a modest article by Arrhenius (on the "fitting" of the rather narrow study results became a revolutionary milestone in the development of chemistry and other sciences. This equation now made possible to describe quantitatively the most complicated physicochemical processes. The Arrhenius equation began to be derived both from the of molecular-kinetic theory point of view and from more complex mathematical constructions. Many works connected with this equation concern the non- equilibrium real processes, the presence of several temperatures and generally different constants in one elementary act, the concepts of Arrhenius and non-Arenius kinetics. However, the "phlogistic" essence of the Arrhenius equation is much simpler: this equation, paraphrasing the name of one of the well-known articles by E. Wigner ("The Incomprehensible Efficiency of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences") inconceivably effective mathematical" object: it makes it possible to close almost any system of macrokinetic equations and formally "simulate" almost any "burning" experiment. Further on how the macrokinetics of combustion has arisen and developed historically. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Nikolai Semenov published several papers with the opposite content: a chain theory based on tracking the multiplication and death of active radical particles, and the theory of a thermal explosion based on the fact that combustion occurs in the same laws as the breakdown of dielectrics. He dedicated the work on chain reactions to members of the Swedish Nobel Committee, and one of the first Nobel Prize winners chemists Arrhenius and Van Hoff - his "great distance teachers", for which he was persecuted for idolatry before the West, but was also awarded a corresponding award (1956). Another series of works led to the development of the so-called thermal theory of combustion by Zel'dovich, Frank-Kamenetsky, and Todes. It should be said that Semenov himself tried not to participate in the development of the thermal theory, and was included only when it was possible to show the chain nature of the chemical part of the macrokinetic process. However, Semenov was seriously criticized of all kinds of "bald", which were then not only in biology, but in virtually all areas of science. Ironically, the "lisenki" from burning: Akulov and Frost tried to seem even more "clerics" than Semenov. When the clouds over the scientists-burners had already thickened and they were threatened with real repression, a "bomb" (nuclear) came to the aid, our contribution to the theory of explosion of which consisted of thermal theory, too ... The Nobel Prize. Uneasy stories of the lives of these people can be learned from various published memoirs. The apotheosis of history with Semenov is the change in his point of view on the character of the third limit of hydrogen burning with oxygen. The "discovery" of a correct view of the mechanism of combustion of gases ascribed to Corresponding Member RAS, Azatyan, on the grounds that "the last word is more expensive than the first." Criticism and examples of "erroneous" design work are also given, including using the so-called "global-kinetic mechanism". Similar situations, when theoretical models are fundamentally different from what is happening in reality, are very widespread in the practice of combustion theory. Another example of the "unprofitable" application of the classical theory of combustion is "solid flame". As a consequence of the classical theory of the propagation of combustion, the theorists have a "solid flame" model, when there is no melting and gasification in the combustion front, which greatly simplifies the physical model and Academician Merzhanov "opens" "self-propagating high-temperature synthesis" (synonyms: "solid flame", " gasless combustion "," Russian process ").The best way to understand the of SHS-phenomenon, as in other similar skips of Soviet science, is to refer to the memoirs of the participants in the events and their surroundings. For example, the American participant John Kaiser turned out to be a prolific writer and for his part himself released, in which he told how the government concluded an agreement with him on relevant activities in Eastern Europe, the aim of which was to try to use the results of socialist science in the United States, as well as the arrangement of various " mousetraps "for the USSR. The problem is that SHS is a nonequilibrium and poorly repeated process and reports that as a result of SHS , the materials and products that the modern science is working on create always cause doubts about their reliability. The world science in the SHS issues moved in the waterway and with an eye to the Soviet and then to the Russian science, many Soviet and Russian scientists went abroad and some manage to get financing there and support the myth of SHS. Nevertheless, several different models of "solid flame" are considered, among which the author identifies his own as correct, but this does not make this process particularly useful.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

We live in a world in which we are constantly trying to deceive: the producers of goods, advertising, politics. And this is normal, since deception usually reveals itself and beats against the deceiver. Although here, not everything is easy and the ability to manage information to deceive very long and effectively - and this is the essence of the present time. I mean that the deception of a scientist can affect society much more than the activities of a criminal, a dishonest official or politician. Deceived - in human nature. The Latin phrase ("Errare humanum est" - "Man is wrong to err") is attributed to the Roman rhetorician Mark Anney Seneca (about 55 BC - about 37 BC). But the most serious mistakes of science, when politics, business and other unscientific factors interfere with it. For example, a well-known case when American corporations paid the result of research that fat or sugar is harmful, as a result of an incorrect answer we have generations of fat people. Or the current situation with the struggle with the "warming" of the climate, which has nothing to do with serious science. In the middle of the 20th century, Stalin supported Lysenko, who promised for several years to "teach" plants and animals by means of their "education" not to be afraid of the cold and to give a lot of food and clothes and did not support the geneticist Vavilov, who said that it was difficult and promised the results of genetic engineering over decades. As a result, Vavilov was killed and hundreds of scientists were either killed or imprisoned, genetics was destroyed in Russia. By the way, now, when there are already genetically modified products, animals and plants, we already doubt that this is definitely good. Khrushchev, giving a state award to the design bureau in which his son worked, slowed down the development of the rocket industry in the USSR ... There are many examples ... About nuclear weapons, computers, telephones and so on, one can speak endlessly. The pace at which science and technology develops determines the way humanity looks and moves. This is an article that the thousands of scientific papers leave with the fitting calculations meaningless due to incorrect scientific paradigms "global kinetic mechanism". What does this lead to? Various devices and military space technology will be slower to appear, need more field tests and approvals (eg in Syria)). Is it good or bad? Joke. As a result of incorrect views on the kinetics of combustion gases explode mines with miners, who are at home from domestic gas, hydrogen is not used airships exploded nuclear power plant in Fukushima. Wrong thermal theory has led to the fact that many scientists are working in the direction of "solid flame" and other such unhelpful directions. I believe that because of the problems noted in the article, humanity has suffered and will suffer losses of trillions of dollars. I think that such problems exist not only in the theory of combustion, but also in other areas of science, despite the fact that obviously impossible or wrong opinions are publish in the very serious scientific journals. Everything happens in the same way as the American historian of science Thomas Kuhn wrote in 1962 in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: incorrect paradigms can "last as long as they please". Kuhn writes that even if the scientific community as a whole is imbued with a spirit of tolerance, double standards of argument operate in it. Judgment in support of the "paradigmatized" ontology is perceived in the context of the "yes-strategy", and attempts to justify "heresy" in the context of "no-strategy", etc. I had to write "Aesopian" language. As a result, not even all reviewers understood what this article is about. I wonder if readers will understand?

Perspectives