The Discrete Space Model of our Universe with Alexander Milanich

Alexander Milanich is a professor of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (or MIPT – one of the best Russian State Universities), inventor of the Eye’s Tester, and the researcher and “creator” of new brunch of the Optometry (individual optometry).

He has published more than 100 articles and patents, some books (in Russian and English), 2 monographs about the discrete structure of our space (where he discussed the main mistakes of modern physics, like the Big Bang theory or dark matter model, phlogiston of the 20th century, etc.). These and other mistakes are caused by errors in the background of physics or caused by the replacement of physical models by mathematics or mathematical theories. By the way, criteria of truth in mathematics are absent entirely.

The Discrete Space concept is a new, revolutionary physical concept based on many physical pieces of evidence. This theory was created by Professor Alexander Milanich. According to this theory, our space (vacuum) and any matter have in the background the same small dipoles (the quantum of space 10-20 cm in length). This model did not need “invisible” black matter or black energy, but it supposes spontaneous creation of extra space and extra matter in our universe—of course, without any conservation energy law, etc.

Why do you think that science is going through a particularly critical time, and we need a new point-of-view about science and physical laws right now?

Many honest scientists have a stable feeling that something is wrong in science today (especially in physics and cosmology). We see many hypotheses based on nothing. The fantasy of some modern physicist in many cases overcomes the fantasy of the best science fiction writers. In addition, in many cases, physics was replaced by mathematics without any criteria for choosing a correct model.

In addition, the “grant” system of financing scientific projects generally accepted today does more harm than good. After the project manager has spent 10-12 billion dollars (for example, to create a Large Hadron Collider), he would never say that his expectations from the research were not met, and the officials who allocated the money would not admit that without having an acceptable education for independent judgment on the prospects of such expensive projects, they trusted the opinion of experts with a similar level of education, which they often appointed themselves.

That is, a vicious circle has arisen when the financing of expensive projects is in no way connected with the result obtained, but is instead determined by personal connections. Is it any wonder then that the “photos” of the M87 black hole (the Event Horizon Telescope project with an estimated total cost of about $300 million) do not show the jets that are present in all other M87 photos in all spectral ranges? And no one answered for such a forgery; the participants even shared a $3 million prize at the end of the project (for silence?)…

All these are characteristic features of the modern crisis, which science must overcome in order to move on. Briefly, these are the main questions that should be answered by modern science and which are given in the conclusion of my monograph The Eternal Discrete Universe and Corrections of Physics. So, let us outline and briefly record the main results of this book:

  1. This monograph presents a new version of the physical design for the quantum-discrete space and discusses the quasi-stationary eternal universe model with no Big Bang, but using spontaneous creation of additional distances (extra quanta of space) and generation of extra matter. Moreover, it was estimated that the physical length of this space’s quantum is 10-20 cm instead of 10-33 cm—postulated as Planck’s size. Also, proposed for the first time was a concrete, dipole’s structure of this space quantum. Hence, the discrete space concept resembles a modification of an “aether” with new attributes: namely spontaneous creation of additional space quanta and extra matter!
  2. The crucial factors against the Big Bang Theory of the Universe creation are discussed, but the devastating consequences for classical physics in the modern astrophysical experiments are introduced, too. Now, there are not many reasons to think that the world was created from a point in a single flash. There are more reasons to assume that the world ever existed, and our universe is unlimited in time and possibly in size, and it is mainly homogeneous.
  3. Space’s internal capability of spontaneous creation of an extra space activates the creation of new matter from “nothing” (from the space), because matter as some kind of dislocation in space’s lattices precisely include the same quanta of space too. In addition, dipole’s structure of quanta was proposed, and the generation of those extra quanta is a reason for the expansion of our world (Hubble Law) and can be the principal nature of gravity. The fractional values of charges in the nucleus indirectly confirm the dipole structure of space quanta.
  4. New ideas for classical mechanics were demonstrated within our expanding world: the limited range of gravity actions, non-conservation of energy, and non-conservation of angular momentum laws. Further, it was explained why Mendeleev’s periodic table was limited to atoms with fewer than 137 protons.
  5. A new point of view on the nature of CMB (relict) radiation was proposed. In addition, it supposes the presence of absolute frames of reference.
  6. A critical point of view on “dark matter” (such as different gravity ranges), “dark energy” (erroneous estimation of connected masses), the modern concept of “black holes” (with singularity), and problems for the tidal acceleration of the Moon (due to wrong calculations) was discussed.
  7. The idea of virtual waves and a new oscillatory version of the hydrogen atom was proposed. A single mechanism for Coulomb and gravitational forces (based on the creation of extra space’s quanta) was discussed. The proposed concept of space better explains de Broglie’s interpretation of quantum mechanics with pilot waves and others. Additionally, an original concept of time in discrete space was suggested too.
  8. Experimental facts of superluminal motion and its explanation in our Universe were discussed. There are serious arguments, contrary to the General Relativity concept and reasons for the validity of classical physical laws, but only at small distances.
  9. In addition, for the first time, the scientific concepts of our soul, God, and the role of information in the Universe from physical points of view was considered. It is possible that a way for understanding the “other world” may come to us from experiments in quantum mechanics and understanding physical properties of space (in a vacuum).
  10. I think that a breakthrough in physics will come not from increasing the power of particle accelerators but from the optical nonlinearity of the vacuum in the laser’s spark. That is my last prediction. Let us wait for a little while…
  11. Ultimately, I believe we will need to divide and categorize all physical units in accordance with their actual character (nature) like physical or mathematical units.
  12. Maybe there are even 3 different speeds of “light”: c – standard speed of light. a >>c and b = α This can explain Kozyrev’s experiments and other phenomena.

So, you propose a new model of the discrete structure of our space. And where is the confidence that you are also not mistaken?

I have never said I am absolutely sure of all the details of the discrete universe model I have proposed. In fact, I am sure that the theory contains some inaccuracies, and I propose a series of experiments that can confirm or refute the main postulates of my theory, such as, for example, the spontaneous birth of matter in the universe (which, by the way, was first proposed by Fred Hoyle). But, repeating the reasoning of the ancient Greeks about the atomic structure of matter, I am sure that there is a limit to the division of distances (quantum of space).

But, unlike mathematics, I am sure that such a quantum of space is material, meaning an experiment in physics can unambiguously solve the question of validity of a particular physical theory. Consequently, the main provisions of the theory of discrete space can be tested experimentally, and such experiments are planned in Slovenia.

Could you give examples of those positions, postulates, and theories of modern physics with which you fundamentally disagree? And explain why?

Sure. First of all, there is the well-known model of the Big Bang. By the way, not everyone knows that the term “Big Bang” was proposed by Fred Hoyle in disputes with Georges Lemaitre on a series of radio discussions to ridicule the model of the “first atom” from which (as Lemaitre believed) our Universe began.

The fact is that by running the “film in reverse order,” as this theory is explained in layman’s terms, we will never get back to the point, because, as modern experiments have shown, ALL ATOMS retain their sizes in an expanding Universe and can NEVER decrease in size! Previously, they did not know this and believed that by tracing history in reverse order, everything would collapse to a point.

That was a gross, logical mistake made in the reasoning of Lemaitre because he relied solely on mathematical calculations! And as noted above, in mathematics principles, everything is possible, and there is no criterion of truth. In addition, modern research shows that the most distant galaxies (near the Hubble sphere) consist, among other things, of heavy atoms (oxygen, etc.), but according to the Big Bang model, they should consist exclusively of atoms such as hydrogen.

The Big Bang theory as well as dark matter and dark energy, or “black holes” (with their property of stopping time inside), etc., are exclusively MATHEMATICAL models that do not have sufficient (if not any) experimental confirmation. All this is not physics, but these theories are well funded… I call “dark matter” the phlogiston of the 21st century, and there are many analogies here.

How do you popularize (expound) these new ideas? In scientific journals, books, or on the Internet? And how does the scientific community feel about such radical ideas?

Good question. Of course, science is conservative (and rightly so). That’s why it’s hard for me to publish such ideas. Often the refusal to publish such works as mine is accompanied by a simple statement: “this does not correspond to the profile of our magazine.” But the situation is changing, and my article “The mass of photons and gravity,” in which I criticize experimental “proofs” of the general theory of relativity, the Indians not only published but also recommended for placement in the world “online library” Zenodo.org, where the latest results and achievements in various fields of science are collected.

Additionally, in 2021, I published a recent monograph The Eternal Discrete Universe and Correction of Physics, where the concept of discrete space is fully presented and the same monograph in the form of NFT will soon be posted on the Internet and will be sold for cryptocurrency (expensive and for publishers). Now the NFT token is registered on WIPO. So far, these ideas have been available only to a narrow circle of specialists who have attended my reports at seminars in FIANA and IOFRAN and at conferences, and they have met with mostly positive reactions. Let’s wait until they become “obvious.”

How do you feel about new, modern technologies for popularizing scientific ideas? Do you visit YouTube channels?

In general, I have a positive attitude, but I myself do not run a single channel or blog and do not visit Facebook or Twitter, let alone TikTok. I’m just sorry to waste time on this. It is impossible to “learn” from YouTube based on “knowledge,” but it is always useful to know the latest developments in the world of science. A common disadvantage of most popular scientific channels is the low level of education of their authors; so often, the interpretation of facts or discussion of “theories” for a specialist look ridiculous. But as news digests, they are certainly useful.

Let us change the subject of the interview. What are your political views? And how do you feel about Putin and his policies? What quality do you think modern scientists lack?

Let’s start with the last question. I believe that many scientists simply lack education. That is why I returned to teaching at university because I want to “repay my debts.” The fact is that I myself come from a simple, working-class family, and my teachers noticed my talents in natural sciences and gave me a decent primary education at the Kolmogorov boarding school. By the way, I have continued and will continue to study all my life.

Now, I’m mastering in blockchain technologies. The second important quality of a good scientist should be inner “freedom.” Without it, you will not dare to present new ideas. Unfortunately, freedom is impossible without material prosperity!

Further. The period of my political activity has long passed. You may be curious to know that I have defended the White House in Moscow twice. During the first defense (1991), I met Alexander Ogorodnikov (Russian dissident, founder, and chairman of the CDU of Russia) at the barricades. It was clear to everyone that this was a coup, and people came out to defend their freedom.

Then, for several years, I was even chairman of the Moscow branch of the CDU. As a Christian, I tried to help Alexander Ogorodnikov and therefore the people of Russia. But after the shooting of the White House from tanks (1993), I concluded that the Russian people “believe the TV” more than their eyes, and it is impossible to help them yet.

Similar problems exist in the European Union and especially in the USA. This is due to the low level of modern education. Therefore, it is easy to convince the population, for example, that “Putin is to blame for everything.” On this occasion, there is a modern saying in Russia: A cat has abandoned kittens – so Putin is to blame.

Personally, I don’t like Putin’s policy (especially his desire to avoid conflicts so that EVERYONE will like his interference in all issues, including economic issues). But his real policy also has achievements. For example, he paid off international loans, revived agriculture, supports science and education, etc. Of course, he was lucky with gas and oil prices. But it is unacceptable that Putin has closed everything to himself (from gas prices to foreign policy or the construction of hospitals). However, it is still difficult to replace Putin. Maybe that is why he “locked” everything for himself? And all new faces in the Russian government usually start with theft. Such a Russian “tradition.” Therefore, Putin is likely to be re-elected.

What do you think about our soul and God as a scientist? Is it possible to explain it from a physical point of view?

I touched on this issue a bit in my last monograph. Each of us feels that he has a soul that does not obey any physical laws. Moreover, it is relatively easy to verify that the soul has no direct connection, even with the human body. For example, after amputation of a limb, many patients continue to feel it (such that it can hurt, itch, etc.). In addition, it can be shown that a person will not be able to accumulate enough energy for the information that corresponds to the mass of the soul (21 grams) even in a lifetime. That is, the information (soul) is given to us for a while and then returns to God. Official physics simply do not discuss such issues, but these do not disappear.

I am a Christian, but a question in my youth inclined me to atheism: Where was God placed? Now I understand that “in my own image and likeness” is an allegory that refers to our free will. And God is a “logical” system distributed in space, but these issues require scientific research!

Also, there are many facts (including our own) that prove the existence of the other world. Stop “turning a blind eye” to everything incomprehensible so as not to repeat the denial of meteorites by the French Academy of Sciences. Scientific research in this area is needed. This is my point of view.

And the last question. How do you feel about international cooperation in science? Have you ever thought about moving and working abroad?

Yes. As a student, I thought about working at a “good” university in Europe. But today I know and understand a lot more, and I don’t want to even live in Europe. However, my son lives and works in Texas, and my cousin lives nearby (both have US citizenship). But I prefer Russia now!

Today, I have a house with a garden less than one kilometer from the Danube, and I have a good idea of the rules of life in Europe. I did not want to live in Europe anymore when, on Christmas Eve in Budapest, I saw a homeless man emptying garbage cans on the ground and picking out cigarette butts, and other homeless people sleeping in underground passages.

I earned money for a house with a garden (and for its repair) without leaving Moscow. Money is a necessary degree of freedom, but it is not the goal of life, which is what I tell students. In addition, Moscow has become a beautiful city compared to any European capital. I have much real estate here, fast and cheap Internet and an interesting job.

In addition, students and postgraduates from Dubai and Vietnam came to me for an internship, and I see that they do not have a very high scientific level. Before the pandemic, I went on vacation to Europe every summer, but now I prefer to live and work here in Russia.

Some international joint projects have been discussed, but so far, they have not been continued. Further, what is supposed to be done in the international projects (like the GRAL project and others), I have already done more without any satellites etc.

Finally, are there any practical applications for these discrete space ideas?

No, there are not. It is fundamental physics only today. But maybe tomorrow…

Thank you very much for your questions and your interest in my person and my work.

Interview: Ivan Stepanyan

Read more: Modern science and engineering with Ivan Stepanyan ...