‘Getting the CERN report [on the discovery of quarks] published in the form that I wanted was so difficult that I finally gave up trying. When the physics department of a leading university was considering an appointment for me, their senior theorist, one of the most respected spokesmen for all of theoretical physics, blocked the appointment at a faculty meeting by passionately arguing that the ace [quark] model was the work of a “charlatan.” … Murray Gell-Mann [co-discoverer with Zweig of quarks/aces] once told me that he sent his first quark paper to Physics Letters for publication because he was certain that Physical Review Letters would not publish it.’
– George Zweig, co-discoverer (with Murray Gell-Mann) of quarks, quoted on page 95 of John Gribbin’s book, In Search of Superstrings: Supersymmetry, Membranes and the Theory of Everything, Icon Books, Cambridge, England, 2007.
It’s refreshing for string theory books to give the Goebbels-style elitist fascism of mainstream physicists an occasional airing; it encourages the kids to do A-levels in physics in Britain. See also this, this and this. (As an additional example, for string ‘theorist’ Edward Witten’s vacuous claim that ‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity’ – which a PRL editor referred to indirectly by claiming that my fact-based falsifiable predictions of quantum gravity are an unnecessary ‘alternative to currently accepted [string] theories’ – see this earlier post.) So kids, if you want to get fact-based, falsifiable innovations published which are counter-intuitive to mainstream charlatan string religion (a faith-based belief system proudly having a ‘Pope’), you need to first work out how to defend physics from the supporters of famous charlatan physicists with obsolete ideas who turn out to be bigoted against progress in physics with the paranoid conviction that anyone with a new idea based on solid facts rather than on the religious faith of string (they don’t need to even read the new paper before condemning it) is actually an ignorant charlatan: ‘… the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions…. This … arises partly from fear of the opponents … and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly…’
Before mainstream (M-theory) string lies were hyped by Edward Witten, work could at least be published before being attacked: ‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ (Professor R.A. Lyttleton’s summary of old-fashioned, pre-string theory censorship, quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in his autobiography, Home is Where the Wind Blows, Oxford University Press, 1997, p154.) The analogy of today’s nasty, career-destroying mainstream string fascism in modern physics to Hitler’s early Nazism of the 1930s when Jews and many others were censored, banned, and hated for no good reason, is not the only analogy (there is also Stalinism which eventually ended up being worse, killing many more people than the Nazis), but it is the most relevant to groupthink insanity in physics today because of the way Hitler was praised and defended by his enemies like Chamberlain and even Churchill out of fear during the 1930s, and all crimes like gas chambers were not personally worked by Hitler – who did not personally live in and work in a concentration camp destroying people’s lives for fun. Nazism was a groupthink (‘… when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action …’ – Irving L. Janis) effort by literally millions of united people.
If the disabled or other groups of victims like Jews are offended by the analogy to Hitler’s fascism, we can always switch to the analogy to Stalinism, if that is to be preferred. But remember, Stalin destroyed far more lives in his purges than Hitler ever did, so beware of taking too much offense to being compared to Hitler. There are currently over 6,600,000,000 people and only a tiny fraction are allowed to submit papers to arXiv or able to publish. That level of censorship would make any dictator proud. Moreover, the Goebbels-style claim that none of the people who are censored without being read have any useful ideas, would make the biggest lies of the worst dictatorships in history pale into insignificance. The paranoia of charlatanism is well known:
‘Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, some smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of everything. I – and so many others – have had a perfectly wonderful life pursuing the will-o’-the-wisp of unification. I have dreamed of my children, their children and their children’s children all having this same beautiful experience. All that would end. APS [American Physical Society] membership would drop precipitously. Fellow members, could we afford this catastrophe? We must prepare a crisis- management plan for this eventuality, however remote. First we must voice a hearty denial. Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any publication by the use of our well-practiced referees.’
– Robert R. Wilson, president of the American Physical Society, 1985. [Physics Today, 39(7), 26(1986), p.30]
Of course this fascist treatment suggested by Wilson for people like Zweig, as published in Physics Today, does not apply to mainstream insanity, it only applies to fact-based falsifiable theories. Mainstream insanity which is totally non-falsifiable is, by contrast, welcomed:
‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ – Dr Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 1996.
Apart from a brief effort by Robert Matthews, visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham, in The Financial Times, June 3, 2006, p11 (where he wrote that string ‘theory’ led by ‘Pope’ Witten was ‘far scarier’ than a ‘crackpot religious cult’ and concluded ‘Academic institutions find it hard enough to fund fields with records of solid achievement. After 20-odd years, they are surely justified in pulling the plug on one that has disappeared up its Calabi-Yau manifold‘), the generally celebrity-obsessed media has never even tried to pressurise the bigoted charlatan Witten into retracting his demented lying claims about predicting gravity, etc.
In fact, the media doesn’t even properly grasp the huge string ‘theory’ problem. Moreover, it treats famous charlatans like Witten gently with kid gloves because of their fame, a case of double-standards. This problem was exactly the same with Hitler in the 1930s, when even Churchill wrote the following complete trash in his essay ‘Hitler and His Choice’ in his 1935 book Great Contemporaries:
‘The story of [Hitler’s] struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force …. Thus the world lives on hopes that the worst is over…’
For this very reason, i.e., the perceived ‘greatness’ of big-mouthed, famous elitist thuggish leaders of cults, the mainstream won’t censor out not even wrong mainstream string ‘theory’ charlatan crackpot claims from Physics Today or other journals, just theories which are based on solid empirical (experimental) and observational (astronomy, etc.) factual evidence and which also make falsifiable predictions which have subsequently been confirmed.
I switched from blogger to wordpress a couple of years ago. As a result of the speed with which I could write and edit, I was able to write a lot of material very quickly in breaks from work, often submitting updates via comments to blog posts to save time. In the absence of anyone to discuss this work with, this has at least enabled me to explore the subject as far as I can myself, and I’ve also read a lot of other material. As stated in the previous post, I’ve suffered a lot of headaches for many years, but these have come to an end now as a result of eye treatment.
What I’m left with on this blog is a mixture of useful facts hidden away in long posts and their comments. Soon I’m changing roles in IT, and will not have the time to work on this theory any more. Now that I can think clearly (without headaches), I’m going to go for it and write a book (free PDF download) as well as to put a little video explaining everything on Google Video or U-tube. The book will contain calculations (rewritten and improved) from this blog, together with far more detailed summaries of all the elements of modern physics (general relativity, quantum field theory, quantum mechanics) in far more detail that the off-the-cuff scribbles in previous blog posts (e.g., this one).
So I’m going off-line and will not be using the internet while I write the book in haste early in the mornings before work. I’ve decided that previous ideas about the content are fine as a basis, but are not sufficiently complete. I will begin the book with a chapter summarising the factual basis of the new theory and its results (confirmed predictions, etc.).
The rest of the chapters will treat general relativity, quantum field theory, electromagnetism, and even look at the some of the ideas behind string theory and the mind-set of the string theorists (both the dictatorial charlatans like Witten, and the more reasonable string theorists like Tony Smith, who doesn’t have the 10^500 vacua landscape and who makes an effort to connect to experimental facts). I also want to treat the big bang from standpoint of an explosion in geometric space, instead of the mainstream effort which falsely imposes the facts onto some version of the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric of general relativity.
This metric is totally inadequate for cosmology in a quantum gravity context because the exchange of gravitons between receding masses will lead to redshift (and energy depletion due to E = hf) of gravitons exchanged long distances between masses for quantum gravity in the expanding universe. The redshift of gravitons received from large distances means that quantum gravity will differ from classical general relativity on large distance scales, not merely on small ones (where quantum gravity effects are traditionally believed to become important).
As a result of the redshift of received gravitons from masses large distances away in an expanding universe, there will be no curvature (no gravitation, for example) over such large distances due to the energy shift of received gravity field quanta. More important, the redshift of gravitons means that the quantum gravity coupling ‘constant’ G is not really a constant at all, but falls over extremely big distances (large redshifts) so the universe ceases to be boundless: spacetime is no longer curved in quantum gravity.
Non-Euclidean geometry ceases, therefore, to apply to quantum gravity on extremely large scales. Not only does classical general relativity fail on small scales, it fails to describe cosmology too. General relativity is only applicable if we alter the value of G to allow for the redshift of gravitons received in interactions over vast distances. Over the size of the universe, G falls to zero and the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric fails completely. We must instead treat the big bang as an explosion in a pre-existing Euclidean geometry (geometric volume), not some warped non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry is just an approximate way to treat gravitation as explained in the post here. A (possibly) slightly helpful analogy to this innovation is the story of how evolution came in over Biblical creationism, so it is worth taking a careful look at how Darwin imposed innovation against bigoted critics successfully:
‘Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume under the form of an abstract, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance … and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. A few … endowed with much flexibility of mind … may be influenced by this volume; but I look with confidence to the future, to [those] who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed. … There is grandeur in this [evolution by natural selection] view of life, with its several powers [growth, reproduction, inheritance of viable – surviving – characteristics, and the struggle for survival due to large numbers competing for the same resources] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.’
This quotation is from the final chapter, ‘Recapitulation and Conclusion’, to the first edition (November 1959) of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. I like the optimism in the brief material I have just quoted (not the assumption of a ‘fixed law of gravity’; Darwin should have taken a mechanistic view to forces instead of assuming them fixed and non-evolutionary), but I don’t think much of Darwin as a man because you see in the quotation above that he asks those who favour his theory to speak up in defence of it (‘Whoever is led to believe that species are mutable will do good service by conscientiously expressing his conviction; for only thus can the load of prejudice by which this subject is overwhelmed be removed’) yet he declined to publish his own theory for fear of attack and ridicule for decades (his excuse was perpetual revision, editing and improvement for decades).
In his ‘Author’s Introduction’ to the volume, Darwin writes of his 22 years of delays and the event which eventually forced publication (Wallace’s rediscovery of the same facts): he first came up with ideas about a mechanism for the origin of species in 1837 upon returning from his voyage in the Beagle, and after analysing the collected facts he wrote a sketch of his conclusions in 1844. Finally in 1858 Wallace posted Darwin a theory of the origin of species and requested Darwin to forward it to the geologist Sir Charles Lyell, who sent it to the Linnean Society and advised Darwin to write a paper to accompany Wallace’s paper. So Darwin was forced into publishing his theory decades after formulating the idea. His ‘Author’s Introduction’ goes on:
‘This Abstract [which he calls his brief book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life], which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this [he didn’t]. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.’
Pathetic! The reason why Darwin’s book was a sell out within a week of publication instead of being ignored was the rising interest after the publication of the brief journal articles by himself and Wallace (read before the Linnean Society on 1 July 1958) in the third volume of the Journal of the Linnean Society a year before. There was a hunger for people to receive more information, although many mainstream authorities ridiculed evolution. Darwin finishes the ‘Author’s Introduction’ in a more lively fashion:
‘Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained – namely, that each species has been independently created – is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification.’
This is still pretty weak. Who cares what one person is convinced of? What is convincing is strong factual evidence. Maybe the reason why there is ongoing ‘dispute’ over evolution across the Atlantic (in some American states) is that Darwin and those who succeeded him as authorities on evolution (including Dawkins of Climbing Mount Improbable fame, who dealt with evolution of the eye, etc.) have never really stated the facts in a compelling way, and pointed out that the Biblical bigoted account of the universe is a complete load of cobblers. In particular, notice that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an evolutionary product itself. Darwin freely admits in his essay An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species that Lamarck in 1801 had already come up with an earlier variant of the theory of evolution:
‘In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species. … Lamarck seems to have been chiefly led to his conclusion on the gradual change of species, by the difficulty of distinguishing species and varieties, by the almost perfect gradation of forms in certain organic groups and by the analogy of domestic productions. With respect to the means of modification, he attributed something to the direct action of the physical conditions of life, something to the crossing of already existing forms, and much to … the effects of habit. To this latter agency he seems to attribute all the beautiful adaptations in nature; such as the long neck of the giraffe for browsing on the branches of trees.’
Lamarck’s failures were:
(1) his belief that habits could be inherited (‘like father, like son’ is an example of this theory, as is the idea that giraffe’s grew their necks longer to reach higher branches, instead of the smaller necked ones simply dying off due to starvation and longer necked mutations being favoured to survive in regions of tall vegetation), and
(2) he believed in the theory of the spontaneous generation of life in order to account for the existence of simple forms of life as well as evolved (more complex, according to his theory of evolution) forms of life. Without spontaneous generation, his (defunct) theory of evolution would predict falsely that today only highly complex forms of evolved life would be left alive, and it would not account for simple forms of life (the amoeba, etc.) existing today which in his theory should have died off as more elaborate forms of life evolved.
These failures in Lamarck’s theory are of great interest to me, because they are both pretty complex and ad hoc ‘epicycle’ style fixes, which Lamarck should have had the sense to omit. I think the mechanism here is that when someone comes up with a new idea or theory, like Lamarck (he wasn’t the very first to come up with an evolutionary theory, that goes back to Anaximander, circa 546 BC, who explained fish fossils found in rocks well above sea level using a theory of evolution), they get more bogged down on a lot of peripheral problems like getting attention for the idea, or alternatively they get sidetracked or lose interest after receiving bigoted hostility from other people who they try to discuss the idea with. They ‘stick to their guns’ and keep to the first variant of the idea that they put out, instead of being willing to improve, edit and reformulate it where it can be improved.
In other words, they become a slave to an fixed idea which becomes a tyrant. That isn’t the way to do science. There is (or should be) no shame in improving and developing ideas, and retracting and replacing papers which contain error. The point of science is not (or should not be) to ego massage. There is a need for a mechanism in science whereby people should be praised for acknowledging and correcting shortcomings, errors, omissions, and for taking account of useful new information regardless of irrelevant factors such as the scientific caste status of the person making the improvement.
The slavery of innovators to the first published forms of their new ideas accounts for the fact that many originators of ideas develop flawed or ‘half baked’ versions of what eventually emerge (after much further development, rows and corrections) as dominant and scientifically sound theories. Why don’t they get it right the first time? Why don’t they listen to criticism? In discussions with the fairly genuine but seriously maligned innovator Ivor Catt, he refused to listen to any politely-put corrections from me between 1996-2004, which he perceived – wrongly – to be a sign that I was
(1) attacking his work subversively,
(2) had not grasped his work,
(3) am deluded myself,
(4) am trying to pollute Catt’s ideas with mainstream garbage just to make them look less radical and more acceptable.
Because he had these four handy but falsely-based destructive and paranoid responses easily available to dismiss anything I said which was constructive, there was no communication from me to him at all, and all discussion with Ivor Catt where I eventually (in 2004) tried to be more assertive simply ended up degenerating into shouting matches on the phone. He would simply start shouting and that would end conversation. While he claimed rightly that the mainstream responded to innovations by restating the mainstream theory (i.e., assuming that the innovation was due to ignorance of the mainstream model), he could not grasp that his approach to censorship was identical to that of the mainstream instead of being – as he claimed – counter-censorship. What is always needed is more lucid exposition of the new idea, until you dissolve any confusion in your critics over the facts you are stating (if you find that you don’t have facts to state, then you don’t have science to state, because science is about facts not speculations).
A few of Ivor Catt’s innovations are very important and factually based on experiments, but he also mixes the facts with false speculations from Heaviside and himself. His complaint that there should be no censorship of his mixed up (right and wrong) ideas falls apart as sheer hypocrisy when inspected carefully, because he censors other people like myself. All of the reasons for mainstream censorship can be discovered by trying to correct a subtle but vitally important error in part of Ivor Catt’s non-mainstream theory. The great thing you discover when you do this is that there is genuine ignorance and really bigoted paranoia widespread in the world: people don’t like changing their ideas, and they prefer to claim you are wrong/hostile/ignorant/time-wasting without listening to you.
The real break down occurred when I asked if Ivor Catt could improve his ‘Catt Anomaly’ to make it more understandable, lucid, etc. I did this after extensive correspondence with Catt’s late co-author (before during and after their co-authorship), Dr Arnold C. Lynch (who produced a vital part of the Colossus computer that broke the Nazi Fish code in WWII). Catt refused to modify the Catt Anomaly diagram because he had already had written comments on it from McEwan and Pepper, which showed confusion. I.e., Catt’s system of values in science is mixed up. It was more important for him to put out confusing questions for propaganda purposes (which are a total failure, many people ask confusing questions in all areas of science and receive confused replies form different experts, which proves nothing constructive at all), than to improve and correct and develop instructional material. At that point, when no suggestion or constructive comment you make can possibly lead someone to change their bigoted opinions and papers, you can see that it is a waste of time to have any further discussion. However, parts of Catt’s work including some of his IEEE publications and the papers he co-authored with Walton and Davidson, contain vitally important physical insights.
I hope to write my book in a Glasstone-style with concise chapter and paragraph numbering so that errors and omissions can be identified and corrected easily. The purpose of trying to do science is not to become an award winning ‘authority’ of some fixed, static and set-in-unshiftable-type-for-eternity ‘highly cited paper’ but to make progress by (1) ascertaining facts and (2) removing errors. It’s unhelpful for readers if facts are mixed with errors. The removal of errors is as vitally important as the ascertaining of facts in science. ‘Theories’ which can’t be falsifiably checked (i.e., that can be endlessly fiddled to agree with whatever nature is) are not even wrong and thus are a form of error when presented as being science (it’s fine to present them as fiction, fantasy or speculation until there is some evidence for them, they only go from being crackpot theories to being charlatanism when they are misrepresented as being science, and that misrepresentation is the whole problem when you see how fascist the mainstream charlatans are to alternative ideas).
When I next log in (who knows when) I’ll have a completed video and free PDF book to upload, and I’ll place a copy of it at http://archivefreedom.org/