Dr Peter Woit of the maths department, Columbia University, New York, has exposed the prejudice in favor of string theory in his brilliant new *Not Even Wrong* blog post (his blog title title refers to the non-falsifiable nature of the string theory landscape that “predicts” everything in different parallel universes, so you can’t test it) called String Theory Fan.

Professor Jacques Distler is a string theory specialist who advises arXiv.org, the online physics free paper preprint server, on what is sensible physics. He had numerous arguments with Dr Woit. Subsequently (maybe the word should be *consequently*), arXiv.org has banned trackbacks from Dr Woit’s blog to arXiv.org papers he discusses.

To investigate this, Dr Woit secretly set up a spoof new blog called String Theory Fan, full of hype for speculative non-falsifiable pseudo-science. Unsurprisingly, arXiv.org approved trackbacks to that blog, while still banning them to Dr Woit’s objective *Not Even Wrong* blog:

In the comments on Dr Woit’s blog, Kea (Dr Sheppeard) writes:

“The shady activities of the arxiv are now well established. Fortunately, alternative sites such as vixra make the arxiv essentially redundant, even if professional ass kissing keeps it alive.”

However, others defend arXiv.org’s censorship of new ideas:

“… there is a danger to feeding the caricatural anti-establishmentarianism manifested by some of those on the fringe of legimitate science – there is a difference between wild, credible ideas and junk …” – Lenny

Stringy theory consisting of wild, credible ideas; not junk?

**Recap of the history of quantum gravity**

1. Newton’s *Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica* has a diagram (Book I, The Motion of Bodies, Section II: Determination of Centripetal Forces, Proposition 1, Theorem 1) showing gravity being delivered by discrete (i.e. quantized) impulses. I.e., Newton uses quantum gravity rather than the continuous variables of his newly created calculus, to prove that the inverse square law applies to Kepler’s elliptical orbits (not just to circular orbits, which Hooke had allegedly already proved ahead of Newton):

2. Newton’s friend Fatio suggests that gravity is quantized and is carried by real particles of a gas. Newton is unimpressed because the idea is speculative, gas tends to cause drag and to heat up moving objects (which would soon slow down and heat up the planets if they are moving through such a gas), and because Fatio is unable to make any quantitative predictions or progress using the idea. It’s just too vague, too far ahead of its time, and too problematic in its initial form. LeSage in 1784 publishes Fatio’s idea in France, pointing out that the geometry of isotropic gas particle pressure being “shadowed” by the sun and the planets will create inverse-square law forces towards those masses, and arguing that two key problems can be overcome if

(*a*) the mean-free-path of the particles in between collisions with masses is large, i.e. the gravitons have a great penetrating power (so that the particles don’t diffuse into “shadow” zones and thus cut off gravity faster than the inverse square law), and

(*b*) the nature of matter is mostly empty space, rather than “solid” as currently thought to be the case in 1784 (i.e. similar to the nuclear atom in which the atom consists of a tiny nucleus surrounded by tiny electrons at distances around 10,000 nuclear radii). This was found necessary by LeSage to allow gravitons to act on essentially all of the *mass inside a planet, *rather than just to depend on the surface area of the macroscopic planet for constant density, surface area is proportional to square of the radius, while volume and thus mass are proportional to the cube of the radius, so LeSage was constrained to make the fundamental particles of mass a tiny size to prevent significant geometric overlap, therefore allowing all of the mass within a planet to contribute to the “shadowing” effect.

3. a century after LeSage, James Clerk Maxwell devised his mechanical aether of the vacuum of space, in which gear cogs and idler wheels conveyed “athereal displacement currents” between the plates of a charging capacitor (and later, between radio transmitter and receiver antenna, once radio waves had been discovered/invented). Consequently, Maxwell had a mechanical interest LeSage’s gravity, and so did Maxwell’s aethereal followers, famous physicists like Lord Kelvin who resisted Einstein’s discarding as “superfluous” of the spacetime fabric in 1905. However, Maxwell, Kelvin and others found that the Fatio/LeSage quantum gravity idea was still incapable of predictions and loaded with apparently insuperable problems. In order to deliver enough force to cause gravity, the gravitons would apparently deliver enough drag force to heat up the Earth as it moved in its orbit of the sun until it glowed red hot (like an meteorite burning up in the Earth’s atmosphere). In addition, the drag force would slow the Earth down, allowing it to spiral into the sun. Maxwell, Kelvin and others for these reasons found the Fatio/LeSage theory to be wrong, and they also deplored the fact that it did not make really impressive numerical predictions, e.g. a prediction of the field strength constant for gravity, *G*.

4. In 1915, Einstein and Hilbert came up with the field equation of general relativity. This is a precise mathematical statement relating the source term for gravity (mass and energy produce gravitational fields, with 1 kg of mass having the same gravitational effects as 9 x 10^{16} joules of energy according to the famous mass-energy equivalence), allowing for the conservation of mass energy by making space contract in gravitational fields, producing acceleration and curvature in 3 spatial dimensions. Spacetime curvature is indicated by a curving line on a plot of distance versus time; this spacetime curvature represents acceleration. Curved spacetime in 3 dimensions therefore represents a force field. The Riemann and Ricci tensors are simply related to acceleration:

5. The success of general relativity in predicting accurately in 1919 that star light falls towards the sun at twice the rate predicted by Newton’s acceleration law for particles of non-relativistic matter, led to a great deal of hype for general relativity. Actually, it is only a classical theory, not a quantum theory, and general relativity has an enormous number of problems (far more than LeSage’s gravity):

(*a*) The stress-energy tensor used to represent the source of gravitational fields in general relativity can’t (and doesn’t) model particles of matter realistically. Like all differential equations, it can only represent accurately smoothly varying quantities, not discontinuities such as an array of particles in space. So general relativity has never been used to represent the discontinuous nature of atomic and particulate matter and energy! Instead, such matter has to be replaced by a “perfect fluid” field with the same averaged mass or energy density.

(*b*) The general relativity theory implicitly assumes that* G* is a constant, i.e. it simply excludes any possibility that the source of gravitation is to be found in the motions of the masses surrounding the observer. Teller in 1948 and others have tried to discredit a time variation of *G* by falsely observing that any such variation would alter fusion rates in the big bang or in the sun, whereas of course electromagnetism is closely linked to gravitation (both are long range, inverse square laws forces), and thus a variation in both electromagnetic and gravitational couplings will prevent any variation in fusion rates (increasing gravity increases compression and thus fusion rates, but increasing electromagnetic coupling does the exact opposite by increasing the repulsion between protons and thus reducing fusion rates by increasing the Coulomb barrier; these two effects offset and effectively cancel out).

We predicted in May 1996 that LeSage’s gravity, applied to spin-1 off-shell gravitons (virtual radiation off the relativistic mass-shell, which is not real gas particles that cause heating and drag!), requires a radial inward force of ~10^{43} Newtons for black hole sized fundamental particles which radiate spin-1 bosons by an off-shell version of Hawking’s radiation theory. This by Newton’s 3rd law predicts an equal and opposite force, i.e. a radial outward force of the gravitational charges (mass and energy) in the universe which are exchanging spin-1 gravitons with us. From the amount of mass in the universe, Newton’s 2nd law, *F = dp/dt ~ ma,* the theory in May 1996 predicted a cosmological acceleration of 7 x 10^{-10} ms^{-2}, a prediction published via page 896 of the October 1996 issue of *Electronics World* and confirmed two years later by Dr Saul Perlmutter’s now famous discovery of that the acceleration of the universe is 7 x 10^{-10} ms^{-2}, using computer automated real-time processing of supernova flash data streaming from CCD telescopes. Hence, we have strong evidence (albeit censored out from Classical and Quantum Gravity due to “spin-2 string theory is the only quantum gravity approach worth reading”-lies which are believed by ignorant, dogmatic peer-reviewers) that has not just survived observational tests but has been proved accurate by predicting the dark energy of the universe accurately. This evidence proves that gravity is caused by the reaction force to the acceleration of the universe. Both cosmological acceleration and gravitation are caused by the exchange of spin-1 gravitons between particles of matter/energy. Over great distances and between great masses the effects are repulsive, while between relatively small masses (an apple and the Earth, both small compared to the mass of the surrounding universe) the repulsion is much smaller than the exchange forces on the other sides, so the net result is that the apple gets pushed down to the Earth. The more matter in the Earth, the more shielding of gravitons and the faster the apple gets accelerated because the asymmetry is bigger.

General relativity has other problems. It has few simple solutions due to its complicated calculus, but the few solutions for cosmology are all wrong because they ignore the quantum gravity mechanism implicit in the motion of surrounding matter just explained. Not only that, but the few solutions to general relativity are “landscapes” like epicycles or string theory, which can represent almost any kind of expanding or contracting universes just by varying the amounts of directly unobservable dark energy and dark matter to make the model approximate the observations. In other words, it is easy to fiddle the theory to fit any universe. In this respect, it is not a useful predictive theory which is constrained to one falsifiable prediction. Find an error in the theory? Simply “fix” the theory to do away with the error, by varying some of the adjustable parameters! Similarly, the Standard Model has 19 adjustable parameters and the minimally supersymmetric Standard Model has 125. Plenty of room for “fine tuning” to force the adjustable theory to agree with your data!

6. General relativity led to other problems too. First, the Kaluza-Klein 5-dimensional spacetime theory. Put 5 dimensions into general relativity, and you get the equation for the photon of electromagnetism as a bonus. If the extra dimension is rolled up at an unobservably small Planck scale or whatever is convenient to the theorist, you have put gravitation and electromagnetism together. However, as Lunsford points out, it’s not a falsifiable prediction of anything. Einstein and others tried different approaches to unify electromagnetism and gravitation classically, and all failed. I have some sympathy with Lunsford’s 6-d approach because he finds that SO(3,3) works (predicting zero cosmological constant, i.e. that cosmological acceleration is due to the spin-1 gravitational field which does the repulsive effect of dark energy between larger masses as well as gravitational attraction between relatively smaller masses which are pushed together harder than they repel one another) which has 3 time dimensions and 3 spatial dimensions instead of extra spatial dimensions. There is a symmetry here and you measure the age of the universe (time) by the Hubble expansion rate, *v = HR,* with time *t* = 1/*H *for the observed flat spacetime of the universe. If you were to measure the expansion rates in 3 perpendicular directions and found them slightly different (indicating a predictable, slight anisotropy in the expansion rate), you would have 3 different ages of the universe and thus 3 effective time dimensions. In correcting general relativity to the real world you may well need 6 dimensions, 3 uniformly expanding dimensions proportional to space and time, and 3 contractable spatial dimensions representing the sizes of matter and energy fields which are locally contracted by gravitational fields, rather than expanded by them.

The biggest problem is that string theorists have gone further down the Kaluza-Klein road in order to incorporate the nuclear forces, adding more extra spatial dimensions instead of a properly understood approach to time dimensions. So they have 1 time dimension and 9 spatial dimensions in 10-dimensional superstring theory, where 6 spatial dimensions have to be compactified by a Calabi-Yau manifold which can be stabilized in a “landscape” of 10^{500} different ways, each corresponding to a different metastable vacuum state, or parallel universe, and 1 time dimension plus 10 spatial dimensions in 11-dimensional supergravity theory, which is holographic “bulk” upon which 10-dimensional superstring theory floats like the surface membrane or “brane” of a bubble (the surface of a bubble has one dimension less than its volume or “bulk”).

Instead of seeing the problems of the 10^{500} different metastable vacuum states of the Calabi-Yau manifold required to incorporate particle physics (conformal symmetry), the hardened string theorist insists dogmatically that “we must believe what nature tells us”. The whole thing is just ridiculous, because the framework of string theory is motivated by the idea of Fierz and Pauli in 1939 that gravity waves are composed of spin-2 quanta.

Mathematically, spin-2 quanta are in the reductionist framework (i.e., *reductionist* in the sense of ignoring the rest of the mass in the universe, instead of being *holistic* by including effects from the rest of the mass in the universe) the simplest way to model the universal attraction between two particles of matter, but it is physically ignorant of the fact that while electromagnetism can get away with a reductionist approach, quantum gravity can’t. In electromagnetism, the electric charges in the surrounding universe are balanced, with as much positive as negative charge (any asymmetry in this would could attractions of the opposite charges with forces 10^{40} times stronger than gravity, and would thus very quickly cancel themselves out by matter-antimatter annihilation, with gamma ray emission). Therefore, for some purposes we can ignore the surrounding electromagnetic charges in the universe and do path integrals for electromagnetism by just considering two charges.

We can’t extend this to gravity because mass and energy only comes with one sign: all masses fall the same way in a gravitational field. There is no such thing as antimass known. Therefore, gravitational charges (mass, energy particles) don’t cancel out in the surrounding universe in the way that electric fields do; their gravity fields instead just add together. So since the mass of the surrounding universe is so large and since the gravitons we exchange with this mass are converging inward towards us from all radial directions around us (not diverging and losing strength with distance as occurs from a single point source of radiation), we must include it in the path integral. As Feynman shows by pictures in his 1985 book *QED*, the path integral for long range weak electromagnetic and gravitational fields are very simple. Looped Feynman diagram with complicated integrals are only really important at high energy. For low energy gravitational physics, the small size of the coupling for gravity prevents loops in the vacuum and we can use simple geometrical methods to do the path integral for many situations.

**Rank-1 tensors (vectors) are used in electromagnetism because the field is defined in terms of the simple rank-1 gradients and curls of Faraday’s imaginary “field lines”; in general relativity, however, field lines are not used and curvatures describing accelerations (second-order differential equations) are used to describe the field. Thus the use of rank-1 tensors in electromagnetism and rank-2 tensors in gravitation stems from the differing physical definitions of the “field” in each case (diverging or curling lines in electromagnetism, but accelerations in gravitation), not to the difference in the spin of the field quanta (spin-1 for electromagnetism, spin-2 for gravitation).**

The most curious thing is the false correlation by physically ignorant string theorists and others of spin-1 fields to rank-1 tensors in electromagnetism and of spin-2 fields to rank-2 tensors in general relativity. The correlation is fictitious, because the choice of rank-1 tensors in electromagnetism is purely due to a difference between the way the field is defined in electromagnetism and the way it is defined in general relativity. In electromagnetism, the field is defined by means of Faraday’s diverging or curling field lines, which are modelled in Maxwell’s equations by summing over simple first-order gradients (rank-1 tensors). If Faraday had not gone in for the field line concept, then you can bet we would today have a model of electromagnetism in terms of accelerations, i.e. rank-2 tensors.

There is no physical basis for popular claims that electromagnetism is intrinsically a rank-1 calculus system and that gravitation is intrinsically a rank-2 calculus system. It’s down to historical chance that Maxwell followed Faraday and used gradients of field lines, first order or rank-1 tensors to represent electromagnetic fields instead of directly representing electromagnetic forces in terms of accelerations (second-order equations, rank-2 tensors). If Maxwell had chosen to write his equations in terms of accelerations rather than via the the curls and divergencies of Faraday’s imaginary (fictitious) “field lines” (rank-1 tensors), then we would have spin-1 electromagnetic fields represented by rank-2 tensor equations insteadf of rank-1. It’s purely down to historical fluke. Once Maxwell had formulated his equations using Faraday’s unobservable field lines as rank-1 tensor equations, they became the usual groupthink physics dogma and nobody was willing to try to rebuild the theory in terms of rank-2 tensors.

Similarly, if Einstein and Hilbert in 1915 had formulated the field equation of general relativity using rank-1 tensors by analogy to the field lines of electromagnetism (instead of in terms of spacetime curvature which describes acceleration more directly), gravitation would be described by rank-1 field equations. In summary, the distinction between rank-1 and rank-2 tensor field equations in electromagnetism and gravitation is solely down to the choice of using the divergences and curls of field lines in 3 dimensional space to model electromagnetic fields and the choice of using spacetime curvatures (accelerations) to model gravitational fields. It is quite possible to model fields described in different ways by the use of different ranks of tensors. It’s got nothing to do with the spin of the graviton, because you could model electric forces with a rank-2 spacetime curvature equation and you could reformulate general relativity in terms of a rank-1 Faraday-type field line model where imaginary gravitational field lines diverge outward from mass/energy particles just as imaginary electric field lines diverge outward from electric charges in Faraday’s picture. Do you grasp this point? If you do grasp it and have some time to waste, maybe you will try arguing with the ignorant, lying bigots who are behind Wikipedia’s spin-2 graviton propaganda lies:

A massless spin-2 field *would* (if it existed) be indistinguishable from gravity because it couples to the stress-energy tensor like gravity. So what? That doesn’t prove that gravity is due to a massless spin-2 field. It certainly doesn’t disprove spin-1 gravitons, which correctly predicted in 1996 the acceleration of the universe as measured two years later by Perlmutter’s group, something that the non-falsifiable spin-2 gravity “predictions” has never done. The sole success of spin-2 gravitons hype efforts has been to stop the publication of the facts, the falsifiable predictions which were later confirmed by the discovery of the acceleration of the universe as predicted. These people are so ignorant and plain stupid that you are wasting your time if you even say hi to them. Like the Nazis, they are big shots and they know it all too well. Like the Nazis, they have their fellow travellers: the people who have the brains to see, like Prime Minister Chamberlain, that appeasement and shaking hands with these scum brings the applause of the crowd. It’s extremely hard to know how to proceed against a widely lauded groupthink consensus of ignorant liars who censor the arXiv.org, the “peer” (peer??? crackpot more like) reviewed journals and the sci-fi obsessed mainstream Hollywood-led media.