“Confrontation is an important element of physics progress:” Paper on black holes retracted

A Springer Nature journal has retracted a 2019 article by a Slovenian physicist who claims that both Creationism and Big Bang theory are wrong, and that black holes are the engines driving the universe.

The paper, in Scientific Reports, was titled “Mass-energy equivalence extension onto a superfluid quantum vacuum,” and was written by Amrit Srečko Šorli. It has yet to be cited, according to Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, and four posts by Šorli’s institute that refer to it have been removed by Medium because the institute’s “account is under investigation or was found in violation of the Medium Rules.”

In 2010, Šorli founded the Bijective Physics Institute, whose proponents — we’re not sure how many there are beyond him and a few others named on the site — believe: 

each physical equation satisfies the bijective function i.e. each element of an equation corresponds to a particular element in the real world. Likewise, every equation and physical model has bijective correspondence with the real world. Bijective analysis realizes Einstein’s vision of completeness of a physical theory. According to Einstein, a theory can be considered complete if every element of a physical theory has a counterpart in the physical reality. Bijective Physics gives us a 100% exact picture of the physical world.

Taking things a bit farther:  

Bijective research methodology confirms: there was no Big Bang, there was no inflation, there was no supersymmetry, there is no antimatter in the universe (it is only artificially created). The entire cyclotron physics needs rigorous revision.

In his 2020 book, “The End of Big Bang Cosmology: Bijective Physics,” Šorli argues: 

Black holes are rejuvenating systems of the universe. In black holes old matter is transforming back into the fresh energy in the form of elementary particles. This transformation of energy is continuous, it has no beginning and will not have an end. The universe is a non-created system in a permanent dynamic equilibrium and has a constant entropy. There is no God behind the universe. The universe itself is God.

Evidently, Šorli’s article, unlike the universe, did have an end — which started last January when the journal issued the following editor’s note: 

Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors. We will update readers once we have further information and all parties have been given an opportunity to respond in full.

According to the retraction notice:

After publication, concerns were raised about this Article, in particular with respect to the theoretical foundation of and the rationale for the model introduced in the paper, the lack of literature support for many of the claims made, the inappropriate use of the supportive literature, the inadequate level of methodological detail provided to allow for replication of the analyses presented, and the lack of evidence in support of the described model. Post-publication peer review has confirmed these concerns. The Editors no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions of this Article.

Amrit Srečko Šorli disagrees with the retraction.

Not being theoretical physicists, we’re not competent to assess Šorli’s ideas about the nature of the universe. However, as people relatively well-versed on publishing matters, we think we’re on solid ground when we say that the journal could have handled this article better. 

For starters, any peer reviewer — even a junior high school student — quickly would have seen that Šorli’s article was at the very least unconventional. So we have to assume that the editors were aware that they were publishing something edgy, something that might prompt comments and letters. 

If the editors weren’t prepared to defend their decision to publish the controversial article, they shouldn’t have accepted it. And about that long lag between the editor’s note and the retraction, a spokesperson for Scientific Reports, told us: 

We received messages from a number of individuals regarding concerns over this paper and soon after placed an editorial note on the paper.  Regrettably there were some delays in the investigation that followed.  We needed to formally re-review the paper and, unfortunately, it took time to secure a suitable review.  Additionally, the overall process was managed by multiple editorial staff due to staff turnover, which also delayed the process.

Šorli acknowledged that his paper had flaws, and that he had offered to correct them but was rebuffed. He also asked the editor for the names of his critics: 

I was willing to contact them and discuss. Confrontation is an important element of physics progress. 

But the editor declined. 

Šorli speculated that: 

experts in the Higgs mechanism did not like the idea in the article, that the Higgs potential cannot be zero. Because if so, this means that in the area of space where there is no Higgs potential this area of space should not exist. 

Because the Higgs field is giving the entire universal space the physical property of being able to contain mass and so cannot be zero.  Entire universal space has physical properties to contain mass. 

I’m not sympathizing with the Higgs mechanism because now we have in the physics gravity field, electromagnetic field, and Higgs field and we do not know how they are related. In my model presented in the article, I explained the origin of the inertial mass of the proton that is not its rest mass. We have to distinguish between inertial mass and rest mass. Higgs field was originally designed to explain the inertial mass of some elementary particles (to slow some particles down) and I showed in my article that the variable energy density of the vacuum is responsible for their inertial mass. The experts who criticized my article put pressure on the editor and he retracts the article. 

Šorli said he was underwhelmed by the post-publication reviews: 

the reviewers did not grasp the subject. They did not have any convincing reason for my article retraction. I did not send my comments back because it was obvious these reviews were a pure formality. It was decided article will be retracted. 

However, Šorli noted, in not quite the same words, that the Streisand Effect appears to be a fundamental property of the cosmos: 

Somehow it has happened now that the article has got more attention. Extention of the mass-energy equivalence principle onto universal space is in my view an important element of physics progress. I will continue my research in this direction.

Meanwhile, he added: 

We are in deep crisis in science because there is no will to openly discuss on the basis of the arguments.  Higgs mechanism is religion, BB cosmology is religion. If you are not a believer you are out of the church.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].