Farewell to blogging

‘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 publishThat 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/

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Farewell to blogging

  1. Nige, I hope you will consider putting your book into print on Lulu or one of their competitors. It’s easy and free to put a book up there, and the results is fairly professional. My book on density matrices is up there now.

    So here’s a promise. Get your book up on Lulu and you will sell at least one copy, provided you don’t set the price too high. (I.e. use black and white printing and don’t arrange for a profit of more than $5 per book.)

  2. Hi Carl,

    Thank you very much for the idea, although it will probably be a long while before that occurs. I’ll have to read your work first in any case.

    One thing I still have to do, which I’ve not got around to on this blog so far, is proper quantization in quantum field theory and quantum mechanics.

    The main problem with quantum mechanics and quantum field theory is the differential equations making use of the wavefunction and the quantization which is mathematically only allowed to occur upon measurement (wavefunction collapse). That’s phoney quantization. The particles are there whether the observer sees them or not; there is no scientific evidence for wavefunction collapse only occurring at the moment a person takes a measurement.

    The actual physics of existing quantum mechanics is more like the equation for a sound wave when you try to use it to model a few individual air molecules.

    If you look at the kinetic theory of gases, the “constant” pressure, p, in a gas is not a real physical constant at all, but arises from averaging impulses delivered randomly and chaotically from individual (quanta-like) impacts of air molecules on your pressure measuring gauge.

    Statistically air pressure appears to be constant when the rate of individual impacts is so high that the randomness of individual impacts is well and truly averaged out. If you think about a fragment of a pollen grain, it only undergoes chaotic Brownian motion if it is small. If you increase the size a lot, the air pressure acting on it gets smoothed out and its motion becomes less chaotic.

    Schroedinger’s equation is such a thing: it is like pressure wave statistical approximation, not a deep down model of individual interactions (the jostling of electrons by individual gauge boson interactions), so it isn’t a proper quantized description of what is going on when quantum fields interact with charges.

    Because Schroedinger’s time-dependent equation gets transformed into the Dirac equation in quantum field theory, the lack of proper quantization persists throughout the mathematics of the Standard Model.
    It’s clear that any equation containing something like d{wavefunction}/dt is not properly quantized.

    It is necessary to derive the wavefunction as a statistical approximation from a consideration of the randomly occurring interactions of a large number of particles (e.g., an atomic electron interacting randomly and chaotically by exchanging electromagnetic gauge bosons and gravitons with other particles). These virtual particle exchanges are causing the chaos.

    A mathematics PhD who sometimes comments on “Not Even Wrong”, Dr Thomas Love of California State University, a year or two ago sent me a draft manuscript called “Towards an Einsteinian Quantum Theory” in which he usefully pointed out:

    “The quantum collapse occurs when we model the wave moving according to Schroedinger (time-dependent) and then, suddenly at the time of interaction we require it to be in an eigenstate and hence to also be a solution of Schroedinger (time-independent). The collapse of the wave function is due to a discontinuity in the equations used to model the physics, it is not inherent in the physics.”

    Dirac’s equation simply makes the time-dependent Schroedinger equation (H*{wavefunction} = iħ.d{wavefunction}/dt) relativistic, by inserting for the hamiltonian (H) a totally new relativistic expression which differs from special relativity ( https://nige.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/the-physics-of-quantum-field-theory/ ).

    Hence it is vital to show how the wavefunction concept in the Schroedinger-Dirac equations arise from a kinetic theory of gauge boson exchange radiation in the vacuum, acting on electrons and other particles.

    Air pressure concepts historically preceded the kinetic theory of gases. What we now need is a “kinetic theory of gauge bosons” which can produce the Schroedinger and Dirac equations as mathematical approximations which hold in the limiting case where the number of individual interactions per second involved is extremely large, smoothing out irregularities over long times (i.e., in the time-independent Schroedinger equation).

    It’s important to consider the analogy of Brownian motion in detail, but change the details so that instead of having air molecules acting you have individual gauge bosons, and instead of fragments of pollen grains being disturbed, you have electrons and other long-lived fundamental particles.

    The average effect of a very large number of gauge bosons being exchanged such as the graviton exchanges involved in making the Earth orbit the sun or an apple fall to the ground, is pretty regular and smooth.

    The wavefunction concept in quantum mechanics fails because it doesn’t model the chaos of individual gauge boson induced deflections.

    The failure of existing quantum field theory is not that it introduces quantized fields to replace classical mechanics, but that it doesn’t introduce truly quantized fields. The wavefunction is a smooth differential model, it’s a statistical approximation which doesn’t model the dynamics between charges and gauge bosons when you are not dealing with large numbers (averages) but are instead trying to deal with individual particles like a single electron.

    It’s obvious that if you take a differential equation of something which moves in a series of jerks due to quantum leaps as bosonic radiation is emitted or absorbed, motion on small scales is hard to model.

    Let’s say that a falling electron accelerates due to a series of discrete interactions with gravitons.

    It’s acceleration is not a = dv/dt = 9.8 ms^{-2}. Instead, it accelerates only in a series of impulses when interactions occur (this is regardless of whether it is assumed that gravitons are spin-2 suckers or spin-1 pushers). In between the individual graviton interactions, the electron coasts at constant velocity.

    Hence, Einstein in 1954 commented on the failure of continuous differential equations as models for reality in his letter to Michel Besso:

    “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.”

    However, it’s clear that the approximate (increasingly accurate for larger numbers of interactions, i.e. for larger size scales or for averaging electron motions out over longer times if we consider small distance scales) nature of differential field equations like the Riemann-Ricci tensors in general relativity and the Schroedinger-Dirac equations existing quantum theory, are not to be totally abandoned just because they don’t include a true (individual, not statistically approximate) model of the interaction dynamics for individual interactions between the gauge boson field quanta and charges.

    The problem as I see it is to carry the quantum revolution further, so that the wavefunction itself is shown to be a continuum or classical-style approximation for large numbers of quantum interactions.

    I liked the first lecture or two of Smolin’s Perimeter Institute online lectures on quantum gravity (hosted on the Perimeter Institute site a couple of years ago), where he shows that what you need to do to get a quantum field theory, i.e. a Feynman path integral, is to sum over a number of interaction graphs for individual interactions.

    The problem there is that according to calculus you’d need to sum over an infinite number of interactions, and clearly there aren’t an infinite number of interactions really going on.

    So the Feynman path integral is only an approximation, and should be replaced by a summation of a discrete number of interaction graphs for the actual interaction rate (whatever the number of gauge boson interactions per second).

    As soon as you try to model anything this way, you replace the “beautiful” mathematical structure of existing quantum field theory with a more ugly Monte Carlo simulation of individual particles flying around, causing things to happen:

    “It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do? So I have often made the hypothesis that ultimately physics will not require a mathematical statement, that in the end the machinery will be revealed, and the laws will turn out to be simple, like the chequer board with all its apparent complexities.”

    – R. P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, November 1964 Cornell Lectures, broadcast and published in 1965 by BBC, pp. 57-8.

    ‘… the Heisenberg formulae can be most naturally interpreted as statistical scatter relations, as I proposed [in the 1934 book ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’]. … There is, therefore, no reason whatever to accept either Heisenberg’s or Bohr’s subjectivist interpretation …’ – Sir Karl R. Popper, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1979, p. 303.

    (Such statistical scatter gives the energy form of Heisenberg’s equation, since the vacuum is full of gauge bosons carrying momentum like light, and exerting vast pressure…)

    Of course there is a lot of bigotry against this whole approach, not lest from the science-abusing mathematical cranks like Edward Witten who are so deluded that they believe they’ve discovered quantum gravity in some non-falsifiable, non-predictive “beautiful” mathematical equations, and hype their lies so much that as with Hitler’s “big lie” doctrine (“the people are more prone to believe a big lie than a small one” – Hitler) they win prizes from gullible jackasses in Stockholm who don’t know that there is a distinction to be made between scientific predictions and abject speculation like string theory: https://nige.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/mechanisms-for-the-lack-of-gravitational-deceleration-at-large-redshifts-ie-between-gravitational-charges-masses-which-are-relativistically-receding-from-one-another/

    [My recent plain writing about string “theorist” liars brings up the topic of “backwards time travel”. As punishment for pointing out why Witten is a crank and a charlatan in respect of his deluded but prize-winning string “theory” hype, it can be claimed that I was suppressed by arXiv six years ago because of my statements now which are so hostile towards Witten and othe fascists. This is a “backwards time travel” theory: spot a person who gets angry after being treated badly for years and then claim that the bad treatment they were given was in fact due to the anger the person eventually expressed as a result of the bad treatment. The gullible crowd is generally accepting of such mainstream explanations and usually won’t spot that this type of claim is vacuous because it involves a reversal of causality and backwards time travel. When I spent five years trying to get a date with a girl, she never wanted a date. After giving up, I said it was a waste of time trying to get a date with her. She then told people that she didn’t want a date with me because I said she was wasting my time. Hence, backwards time travel. She must have travelled back in time five years, met her self, and told her self not to date me for five years because in five years time, having never had a date, I would say that it was a waste of time trying to get a date with her. The importance of this story is that people have to fabricate an excuse to “explain” how other people are always entirely to blame for failures. E.g., Oliver Heaviside was censored out by the mainstream and then – as a result of censorship – he became hostile towards the mainstream (particularly Sir William Preece who ignored Heaviside and used his mainstream authority to instead hype his – Preece’s – own crackpot idea that distortion of speech in long distance phone lines was due to bad cable shielding rather than insufficient inductance). Heaviside’s critics then irrationally claimed that the reason he was censored in the first place was because he was eventually became annoyed about the censorship he was experiencing, when in fact the causal relation was the other way around: an alleged “rudeness” (plain-speaking, really) was a resultant of censorship and thus was entirely justified. Another aspect of this pathetically fabricated hostility to innovators is the claim that Heaviside was a pathetic failure because his inventions were censored out in England by Sir William Preece, bigoted head of Post Office Telecommunications, and so Heaviside didn’t have the money to patent them. As a result he was poor and lost out to others who eventually were able to patent them. This alleged claim that Heaviside was really a failure because he was successfully censored in many areas and because he didn’t make a lot of money leads one to ask those critics if they similarly want to attack Jesus as being a failure because he didn’t die with a huge bank balance. Of course, we know the answer. The moral majority are sufficiently bigoted that they can partition the example of Jesus from the concept that stars must be rich. Those who are poor must be considered failures in society, because it is vital to promote role examples who are rich, as role models for kids to aspire to. Jesus the poor radical makes a bad role model in some ways, so kids are not encouraged to follow in his footsteps, and thus the hypocrisy is played out in religious ceremonies whereby the audience is encouraged to sing and chant in such a way that the reality of Jesus’ message gets drowned out. Learning to be a hypocrite is a vital skill taught by Christianity. Learning to be an effective hypocrite must remain vital in a world where Richard Branson and the Pope are stars to be applauded for their wealth in dollars and in spiritual closeness to God. If I was a newspaper editor, there would be less reverence in the newspaper for such people. If Mr Branson wants publicity he can spend his money buying paid-for media adverts. I don’t want to pay money for buying newspapers which goes towards hiring people to photograph and interview rich stars like Branson or even spiritually rich stars like the Pope. That’s not journalism, which is concerned with news, not the lives of a few rich people. If Mr Branson or the political-commercial infrastructure of the so-called “Catholic Church” (the formal organisation which is largely contrary to the real message of Jesus) did something really newsworthy like give all its money to the poor, then it would be deserving genuine news publicity in the media. Somehow, I don’t think I’d make an effective newspaper editor because I’d publish news instead of publishing the celebrity s*** that people want to read. Following this line of reasoning, you can see why all the editors of newspapers turn out to be complete s***s themselves: they have to be like that to do their jobs and make the papers sell. However, just because I might understand a bit of the paranoia and double-think behind the mass-media, that doesn’t mean that I have any sympathy or empathy with the modern newspaper editor. The world would be a happier place without such s***s.]

  3. Hi,

    The Editor of Physical Review Letters is now publishing speculative, not fact-based, “interpretative” pseudo-physics falsely fitting string theory and inflation to cosmic microwave background data just like astronomy was falsely fitted to epicycles in Ptolemy’s earth-centred system:

    Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 021301 (2008)
    “Fitting Cosmic Microwave Background Data with Cosmic Strings and Inflation”
    Neil Bevis,1,2 Mark Hindmarsh,1 Martin Kunz,3 and Jon Urrestilla1,4

    1Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9QH, United Kingdom 2Theoretical Physics, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom 3Département de Physique Théorique, Université de Genève, 1211 Genève 4, Switzerland 4Institute of Cosmology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155, USA
    (Received 23 March 2007; published 14 January 2008)

    We perform a multiparameter likelihood analysis to compare measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectra with predictions from models involving cosmic strings. Adding strings to the standard case of a primordial spectrum with power-law tilt ns, we find a 2 detection of strings: f10=0.11±0.05, where f10 is the fractional contribution made by strings in the temperature power spectrum (at =10). CMB data give moderate preference to the model ns=1 with cosmic strings over the standard zero-strings model with variable tilt. When additional non-CMB data are incorporated, the two models become on a par. With variable ns and these extra data, we find that f10<0.11, which corresponds to Gµ<0.7×10-6 (where µ is the string tension and G is the gravitational constant).

    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000100000002021301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

    New Scientist has hyped this:

    Were cosmic strings seen in big bang afterglow?
    11:46 21 January 2008
    NewScientist.com news service
    David Shiga

    Traces of vast cosmic strings have been found in radiation from the early universe, a controversial new study says. If confirmed to exist, cosmic strings could offer an unprecedented window into the extreme physics of the infant universe.

    Snags in the fabric of space may have developed a fraction of a second after the universe’s birth – perhaps at the end of a period called inflation when the universe was rapidly expanding.

    It is thought that these snags would be shaped like very slender strings, with a thickness far less than the width of an atom but with lengths measured in light years. They would also be very heavy, with a section just a kilometre long potentially having as much mass as the Earth. … [In other “news”, the evidence for Emperor’s new clothes, made of similarly string-theory slender one-dimensional thread, has controversially been sighted in an empty part of space. The fact that the threads are so small they can’t be seen, is controversially hyped as “evidence” that they really do exist, string theorists claimed.]

    http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13204-cosmic-strings-observed-in-background-radiation.html

    According to a comment on Dr Woit’s blog:

    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=643#comment-34175

    “Actually Bevis’ group at Imperial College, London are claiming to have detected traces of cosmic strings in the WMAP data which maps the afterglow of the Big Bang. Bennet, the head of WMAP isn’t buying it and calls it a statistical fluke.

    “I’ll you just one guess as to where this report appeared. What? New Scientist? How on earth did you guess that?”

    It’s convenient that the Editor of Physical Review Letters publishes such non-falsifiable abject speculation stuff after suppressing your fact-based work:

    Sent: 02/01/03 17:47
    Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook
    {mechanism of gravity with quantitative prediction of gravity strength and other predictions, made in 1996 and confirmed by Perlmutter’s CCD observations on supernovae in 1998}
    Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories [i.e., mainstream charlatan string theories] Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

    https://nige.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/mechanisms-for-the-lack-of-gravitational-deceleration-at-large-redshifts-ie-between-gravitational-charges-masses-which-are-relativistically-receding-from-one-another/

  4. In addition to the example of Zweig (quoted at the top of this post), there are many other examples.

    Perhaps the most interesting from our point of view is the case of Ernst Stückelberg (Stueckelberg), 1st February 1905 – 4th September 1984), a Swiss mathematical physicist.

    By 1935, he came up with the vector boson (pion) exchange theory of the strong nuclear force between nucleons by 1935, independently and possibly before Hideki Yukawa (who later won the Nobel Prize for this).

    In 1942 he came up with the key ingredient of the U(1) electrodynamics symmetry, whereby positrons are treated as electrons travelling backwards in time (which Feynman later published). This, although physically vacuousm, is a useful trick as it allows pair production to be treated classically and simply, just as the Compton effect is a classical theory which treats the collision of gamma ray and electron in a similar fashion to the regular treatment of two billiard balls colliding in classical physics.

    In 1943, he submitted to the Physical Review a detailed proposal for a renormalization programme to avoid the infinities plaguing quantum field theory, but they rejected it.

    Tony Smith has an excellent internet page about this: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/ecgstcklbrg.html

    At the end of that page, mentions that Stückelberg attended a lecture at CERN given by Feynman after Feynman had received the Nobel Prize, and commented that Stückelberg unfairly missed out on the 1965 physics Nobel Prize (which was given to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonoga).

    Tony Smith then asks two questions:

    “1 – When and how did Feynman find out about Stueckelberg’s QED work? Certainly it was before the CERN talk in 1965, and it could have been any time after 1942 or 1943 when Stueckelberg sent his paper to the Physical Review in New York.

    “2 – Why did Feynman not insist to the Nobel Prize committee that Stueckelberg should share the Nobel Prize for QED, or at least publicly acknowledge Stueckelberg’s work in his Nobel acceptance speech, or at the very least personally and publicly acknowledge Stueckelberg’s work in the CERN lecture with Stueckelberg in the audience (instead of only making an informal remark after the lecture to some members of the audience, but not to Stueckelberg personally)?”

    The problem is that lots of people with some involvement were being recommended for a few prizes. John Ward, who came up with the well known Ward Identity, was nominated for the 1965 physics Nobel prize. Dirac himself was also still alive in 1965, and he was the author of the 1933 paper on the path integral, called “The Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics”, which inspired Feynman’s PhD work on path integrals. So they could have given him a share in a second Nobel Prize.

    At the page http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/goodnewsbadnews.html Tony Smith quotes Feynman’s problems in making the renormalization work understood at the 1948 Pocono Conference:

    “… My way of looking at things was completely new, and I could not deduce it from other known mathematical schemes, but I knew what I had done was right.

    … For instance,

    take the exclusion principle … it turns out that you don’t have to pay much attention to that in the intermediate states in the perturbation theory. I had discovered from empirical rules that if you don’t pay attention to it, you get the right answers anyway …. Teller said: “… It is fundamentally wrong that you don’t have to take the exclusion principle into account.” …

    … Dirac asked “Is it unitary?” … Dirac had proved … that in quantum mechanics, since you progress only forward in time, you have to have a unitary operator. But there is no unitary way of dealing with a single electron. Dirac could not think of going forwards and backwards … in time …

    … Bohr … said: “… one could not talk about the trajectory of an electron in the atom, because it was something not observable.” … Bohr thought that I didn’t know the uncertainty principle …

    … it didn’t make me angry, it just made me realize that … [ they ] … didn’t know what I was talking about, and it was hopeless to try to explain it further.

    I gave up, I simply gave up …”.

    – “The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Sciece of Richard Feynman”, by Jagdish Mehra (Oxford 1994) (pp. 245-248).

    Feynman was in a better geographic position to make his case. In one of his books of anecdotes, he tells the story amusingly of how Wigner arranged for him (Feynman) to give a lecture in front of Einstein, Pauli and other greats. They all all said he was on the wrong track, when his idea was right. Einstein was the most polite. Nobody wants to back someone else’s new innovation because everyone has their own idea, and there is a lot of abuse thrown at anyone who backs anything which isn’t already an orthodoxy (whether deservedly so, or not).

    In addition there is a Glasstone effect. In his “Sourcebook on Atomic Energy” (1967), Glasstone makes the point twice (check the footnotes for the first instance, I think it is the subject of measuring the charge to mass ratio of the electron) in connection with tales of someone coming up with the idea before the acknowledged innovator, that what counts at the end of the day is whether a person is heard, i.e., whether the person forcefully manages to push the idea into the attention of the mainstream.

    If the person comes up with a correct idea but doesn’t manage to get any attention, the story is not going to be front page news even when someone else comes up with the idea. It generates a lot of annoyance in the media. Journalists don’t have the competence in mathematical physics (or if they do, they lack the time, like everyone else) to assess ideas. Even if they did, and were convinced, they wouldn’t be able to write up a serious looking science story about something extremely complex without peppering it with officialdom such as the mainstream affiliations of the author and including quotations from mainstream “authorities” who say the idea is worthwhile. For a really radical idea, nobody in the mainstream will find the time to read, in an unprejudiced light, a paper by an unknown which is long enough to contain all the evidence and detail to make the idea convincing. If they did, they would not be in a position to help in any way. If they started work on a radical, correct idea it would make them appear foolish or crazy, so they would lose their popular prestige and (at some stage) their funding sources. Money controls science. That’s why uncheckable mainstream M-theory ideas are so worshipped today: they can’t be checked and found wanting, and if they are, they come in 10^500 forms so will it will make more time than the age of the universe to check them all carefully. For the political plight of the innovator due to groupthink, see Nicolo Machiavelli’s classic work, published right back in 1531 A.D.:

    http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

    “Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, 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, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.”

  5. copy of a comment:

    http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1081

    Dirac did write a crucial paper about the path integral in 1933, called “The Lagrangian in Quantum Mechanics”.

    That Dirac paper is reprinted (together with Feynman’s PhD thesis, “The Principle of Least Action in Quantum Mechanics”)) in the book “Feynman’s Thesis: A New Approach to Quantum Theory” (laurie M. Brown, editor, World Scientific Publishing, London, 2005). The introduction to that book is available online: http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/5852/5852_preface.pdf

  6. Over on that blog, Dave Bacon (an assistant research professor, physics dept., University of Washington) has responded to me as follows (I probably won’t pursue this over there, but will make this note here instead):

    http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=1081

    “The interesting thing about that paper, of course, was the Dirac did not interpret his results in the way that Feynman did. Dirac wrote the equations, Feynman interpreted the poetry 🙂

    “Comment by Dave Bacon — 2/7/2008 #”

    In other words, the physical interpretation of mathematics has some value in physics. The usual mainstream line is that there is only mathematics, it’s the only thing of any value in the universe, and physical interpretations are meaningless. It’s nice to see some hypocrisy and double standards made clearly visible for once.

    In fact, both physical interpretations and mathematical formalism is vital. You don’t get far with say tensor calculus if you don’t apply it to accelerations caused by the mass-energy, momentum, pressure, etc. You don’t predict antimatter from the Dirac equation of 1929 unless you have some kind of physical Dirac sea to help you get to grips with what it means.

    Now compare to Feynman’s own statement about Maxwell’s equations:

    ‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on Physics, v3, 1964, c18, p2.

    So very it’s interesting that in 1990, Professor Freeman Dyson (who first popularised Feynman’s path integral and the Feynman diagrams corresponding to terms in its perturbative expansion series) published a heretical (classical/quantum mix) proof (“Feynman’s proof of the Maxwell equations,” Am. J. Phys., v. 58, pp. 209-211) of Maxwell’s equations which Feynman had worked out right back in 1948, for technical details see:

    http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-272/aflb272p241.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s