Article finished at 2am on 30 Nov. (7.3 MB PDF file, 63 pages, downloadable here.) Also hosted at http://rxiv.org/abs/1111.0111, the General Science Journal, and (with some extra material) as the brief mail-order paperback book, Quantum Gravity and the Standard Model, ISBN 978-1-4709-9745-8, which is being listed on Amazon for those who want to help ensure a warmer global future (by turning trees into paper).
Dr Tommaso Dorigo comments on his post Higgs Expectations:
“… in order to really prove that our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking is flawed and that there is no Higgs boson we would need a much, much more solid evidence than a mere “95% exclusion”. I would not be satisfied with anything less than a 99.9% exclusion (over three sigma) across the full mass range.
But I do not honestly believe that we will ever get into such a situation. I do believe, in fact, that the particle is there, and that it will be found very soon! So stay tuned and place your bets if you haven’t already. Time is running short.
We avoid the usual electroweak symmetry breaking problem, by changing electromagnetism from U(1) to a massless SU(2) gauge theory (which works out correctly, yielding Maxwell’s equations from the Yang-Mills, because charged massless vector bosons can’t propagate asymmetrically), so that SU(2) becomes a complete electroweak theory. (This is fine for the weak bosons, while the apparent discrepancy between weak isospin charges and fractional quark electric charges disappears with a vacuum polarization model, which predicts that 1/3 or 2/3 of the electric charge energy of quarks is present as strong colour charge.) U(1) is not abandoned altogether; it is dark energy, which also predicts gravity. The mass of SU(2) weak bosons is then produced by the Glashow-Weinberg mixing of U(1) gravity with SU(2) electromagnetism. Instead of a electroweak symmetry being broken to yield Nambu-Goldstone “Higgs” bosons, the weak interaction emerges from a simple mixing of SU(2) electromagnetism with U(1) gravity. I’ll try to get a briefer paper done, ready to replace the Higgs boson.
Update (7 December 2011):
“Then Koide went some steps beyond and considered quarks and leptons with substructure, so that lepton mass quotients could predict the Cabibbo angle too, even if this is a mixing between quarks.”
{(sqrt(M_e)+sqrt(M_mu)+sqrt(M_tau))^2} /( M_e + M_mu +M_tau) = 2/3
The key factor of 2/3 in the Koide relationship is the fractional electric charge of the up/charm/truth quarks, which arises from a mixing effect. It’s the 2/3 electric charge of up/charm/truth quarks that’s so interesting. The -1/3 charge of the down/strange/bottom quarks is very easily predicted by analysis of vacuum polarization for the case of the omega minus baryon (Fig. 31 in http://rxiv.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf). It appears that the square root of the product of two very different masses gives rise to an intermediate mass (see https://nige.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/koide-formula-seen-from-a-different-perspective/ for the simple maths) that the Koide relationship implies a bootstrap model of fundamental particles (akin to the bootstrap concept Geoffrey Chew was trying to develop to explain the S-matrix in the 1960s before quarks were discovered). The square root of the product of the masses of a neutrino and a massive weak boson may give an electron mass, for instance. This seems to be the deeper significance of the Koide formula, from my perspective for what it’s worth. All fundamental particles are connected by various offshell field quanta exchanges, so their “charges” are dependent on other charges around them. This means that the ordinary approach of analysis fails, because of the reductionist fallacy. If your mathematical model of rope is the same for 100 one-foot lengths as for a single 100 foot length, it leads to customer complaints when you automatically send a sailor the former, not the latter. It’s no good patiently explaining to the sailor that mathematically they are identical, and the universe is mathematical. If the Koide formula is correct, then it points to an extension of the square root nature of the Dirac equation. Dirac made the error of ignoring Maxwell’s 1861 paper on magnetic force mechanisms: the chiral handedness of magnetism (the magnetic field curls left-handed around the direction of propagation of an electron) is explained in Maxwell’s theory by the spin of “field quanta” (Maxwell had gear cogs, but in QFT it’s just the spin angular momentum of field quanta). Maxwell’s theory makes EM an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, throwing a different light on the Dirac’s spinor. It just so happens that the Yang-Mills equations automatically reduce to Maxwell’s if the field quanta are massless, because of the infinite self-inductance of electrically charged field quanta, so SU(2) Maxwellian electromagnetism in practice looks indistinguishable from Abelian U(1), explaining the delusions in modern physics.
The very interesting results Alejandro Rivero gives are from equation 4 on page 3 of his paper http://www.vixra.org/abs/1111.0062, which solves the Koide formula by writing one mass in terms of the two lepton other generation masses. Koide’s formula also implies (my 2009 post):
Me + Mm + Mt = 4 * [(Me * Mm)^1/2 + (Me * Mt)^1/2 + (Mm * Mt)^1/2]
where Me = electron mass, Mm = muon mass, Mt = tauon mass. I.e., the simple sum of lepton masses equals four times the sum of square roots of the products of all combinations of the masses, making it seem that if Koide’s formula is physically meaningful, then Geoffrey Chew’s bootstrap theory of particle democracy must apply to masses (gravitational charge) in 4-d. At high energy, early in the universe, tauons, muons and electrons were all represented and we only see an excess of electrons today because the other generations have decayed, although some of the other masses may actually exist as dark matter, and thus still undergoes the interaction of graviton exchange, which determines the Koide mass spectrum today (this dark matter is analogous to right-handed neutrinos). The basic physics of the Koide formula seems to be the Chew bootstrap applied to gravitation (Chew applied it to the strong force, pre-QCD):
“By the end of the 1950s, [Geoffrey] Chew was calling this [analytic development of Heisenberg’s empirical scattering or S-matrix] the bootstrap philosophy. Because of analyticity, each particle’s interactions with all others would somehow determine its own basic properties and … the whole theory would somehow ‘pull itself up by its own bootstraps’.” – Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Jonathan Cape, London, 2006, p148. (Emphasis added.)
The S-matrix went out when the SM was developed (although S-matrix results were used to help determine the Feynman rules), but at some stage a Chew-type bootstrap mechanism for Koide’s mass formula may be needed to further develop a physical understanding for the underlying theory of mass mixing, leading to a full theory of mixing angles for both gravitation (mass) and weak SU(2) interactions of leptons and quarks.
“… publishing a groundbreaking idea in peer-reviewed journals can be nearly impossible.”
– Louise Riofrio
Before you can get past peer review, you must convince the “peers” to listen, which is impossible if they believe in an “alternative” which has no evidence to support it (you can’t discredit something that’s not scientific to begin with):
“Scepticism is … directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one’s own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions … scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes … one collects ‘facts’ and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it … No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide – this is what the fairy-tale tells us. … This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else … It is the vote of everyone concerned that decides fundamental issues … and not the authority of big-shots hiding behind a non-existing methodology. … Science itself uses the method of ballot, discussion, vote, though without a clear grasp of its mechanism, and in a heavily biased way.”
– Professor Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method”, 1975, final chapter.
“The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a ‘peer’ reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics, Newton’s grand synthesis – these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors’ friends. … Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin’s friends. … the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. … ‘peer’ review is NOT peer review.”
– Professor Frank J. Tipler, Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
In 2006, the bestsellers by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong” and “The Trouble with Physics” were published, showing that superstring theory has become a dogmatic consensus, like epicycles being “defended” by less-than-objective methods. Right on cue, the world’s greatest genius behind M-theory, Ed Witten, happened to write a letter to Nature (v. 444, p. 265, 16 November 2006), headlined:
“Answering critics can add fuel to controversy.
“SIR — Your Editorial “To build bridges, or to burn them” and News Feature “In the name of nature” raise important points about criticism of science and how scientists should best respond (Nature 443, 481 and 498–501; 2006). The News Feature concerns radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists, but the problem covers a wider area, often involving more enlightened criticism of science from outside the scientific establishment and even, sometimes, from within.
“The critics feel … that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. … They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. … We all know examples from our own fields … Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to devote immense energies to their efforts, can thrive on the resulting ‘he said, she said’ situation. [Critics must never be permitted to thrive.]
“Scientists in this type of situation would do well to heed the advice in Nature’s Editorial. Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have the chance, try to patiently explain why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.
“Edward Witten
Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA.”
The next letter on that Nature page (from genetics engineer Boris Striepen) stated: “How and why did our public image change from harmless geeks to state- and industry-sponsored evil-doers worthy to be a target? More importantly, what do we do about it? And how do we communicate more effectively what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the opportunities and challenges of modern science are?”
Answer:
– Gregory H. Canavan, The Leadership of Philosopher Kings, Los Alamos National Laboratory, report LA-12198-MS, December 1992.
Above: in the 1970s, state control planned to nationalize everything and control everything from the top, including scientific research and production. This was opposed by the campaigns like “Beware of the Elephant” (this advert is from The Guardian 9 Aug 1974 p5), which warned of the dangers from state control. Stalin admitted in his own book, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, that the basic laws of nature are the same in free capitalist countries and socialist dictatorships, leading to stagnation, hubris, corruption, and other symptoms from the bloated, short-sighted elephant of state control unless the leadership is continuously fighting wars or innovating (Stalin pressed forward with nuclear power and space rockets and public criticisms were tempered; the bankrupcy of the USSR in the 80s when Reagan and others set up Star Wars/SDI and W-79 neutron bombs to negate the Soviet SS-20s and Warsaw Pact tank superiority, effectively ended the USSR dream of world domination so criticism of the regime’s short-sighted hubris became harder to censor out and dissent became more openly fashionable). Hubris also has tragic consequences for science (e.g. Lysenkoism in Stalin’s time, or eugenics in Hitler’s), just as they do for political economy as is now being well demonstrated by the socialist era debt problems of Greece and other Eurozone economies. But our point concerns the destruction of science by this same mechanism of short-sighted dictatorship by the media-loved band of “mainstream” superstringers who don’t have a falsifiable theory or even address the fundamental data that needs explaining. Other analogies abound in Health Physics nuclear quackery political-expedience limbo, and CO2-rich hot-air.
Ex-NASA climatologist Dr Roy Spencer ends his latest Climategate 2.0 blog post:
“But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is.”
Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, when the word goes around that the leadership is faulty, nobody dares overthrow the leader, or they bungle it. It’s precisely like the situation of Stalin or Hitler, who have got to the top by having a private army of bodyguards and propaganda chiefs, so that people like Delingpole can be pushed down by Dr Goebbels, aka the BBC’s biased “elite documentary maker,” Sir-Lord-God-Nobel Haw Haw of the Regal Society of Pseudoscientific Quacks, dedicated to the “laudable” politically-correct challenge diverting our limited funds in a time of austerity from saving human lives in drought and famine hit areas of humanity, to instead line the pockets of swindling carbon credit traders. The claim that democracy would allow the people to overthrow a scientific dictatorship of quacks funded by political expediency is laughable and is well disproved by all examples of scientific corruption in history, from the injection of false Aristotlean physics into medieval Christianity by Thomas Aquinas, to 11-dimensional superstring M-“theory” (which contains no theory, merely a vacuous framework in which 10500 different metastable vacuum states can sit, all of which contain the same faulty spin-2 graviton framework assumption).
Everybody can smell the stench from this piece of vile pseudophysics with its Gestapo response to critics, its abuse of the peer-review system for censorship of criticisms, and its patiently false “greenhouse” assumption which relies on the implicit assumption of an invisible non-existent glass ceiling to prevent water vapour from becoming cloud cover. The liars of the mainstream lyingly call critics “climate change deniers”, when climate change is natural: the argument is about whether the earth is a “greenhouse” that is super-sensitive to CO2 injections or not; the case for NOT being the earth is NOT a greenhouse. If the earth were a greenhouse, there would be no oceans (71% of surface area) and no cloud cover which varies in direct response to CO2. In fact, if you pump in CO2 and you increase cloud cover, which reflects back more sunlight into space, keeping the surface cool. This is negative feedback, totally ignored by all IPCC models, which make the same collective politically-correct mistake of assuming that the greenhouse effect is true (where IR-absorbing water vapour is unable to form clouds, and so has only a politically-correct positive feedback). In a greenhouse, water vapour is prevented from rising to from cloud cover that cools the greenhouse, because of the implicit glass ceiling (i.e. the falsely assumed lack of buoyancy of sunshine IR-warmed moist ocean surface water vapour).
Dr Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-bias-in-scientific-research/:
“In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change. [Actually the climate is always varying so there is 50% chance of rising temperatures, 50% of falling temperatures. This reduces the statistical value of correlations of CO2 and temperature when you take account of the fact that there is a 50% chance of a spurious, coincidental correlation.]
“The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.
“Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.
“I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding. In my experience, they are either: (1) true believers in The Cause; (2) think we need to get away from using fossil fuels anyway; or (3) rationalize their involvement based upon the non-zero chance of catastrophic climate change.”
Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was faked to show constant temperature until CO2 began rising. IPCC/NASA gurus on the Horizon BBC2 “Science under Attack” propaganda film claimed that humanity emits 7 times more CO2 than nature, when in fact natural sources of CO2 emit 30 times more (even the IPCC 4th assessment report lists in its un-hyped small print that humanity’s emission is 29 Gt of CO2 from all fossil fuels etc, compared to 771 Gt from all natural land and ocean emissions). It’s well within the natural climate fluctuations of CO2, and the scare-propaganda relies entirely on censoring out the evidence of natural variability by tricks like switching temperature proxies at 1960 and 1980 so as to try to produce a hockey stick curve.
Before 1960 they use tree rings as the major proxy, which is false because tree growth is sensitive to cloud cover and rainfall, not particularly CO2 levels. From 1960-80 they used temperature station records near expanding “heat islands” like industrial factories and cities. After 1980 they used satellites which can’t tell the temperature under the cloud cover where all negative-feedback from cloud cover actually occurs. No prizes for guessing that the satellite “temperature data” didn’t properly include negative feedback from the extra cloud cover resulting from the extra evaporation of water due to rising CO2. They’re complete fanatics, who don’t donate a single brain cell to objectivity, let alone half a brain!
– Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
This quotation is the smoking gun: Dr Roy Spencer’s latest paper was shot down by peer-review, then he was contacted by a “critic” whose paper is in proof, and is claiming that cloud cover doesn’t have negative feedback (i.e. cancel out CO2 injection effects on climate, the entire AGW scam) simply because the mainstream model doesn’t include cloud cover. If ever there was a circular argument, this is it. It’s a groupthink “ends justify the means” delusion, where they think they can safely suppress the facts because “making the environment cleaner” is an unassailable objective, never minds the diversion of funds from lifesaving charities into carbon trading scams. Stalin didn’t personally murder 40 million in collectivization of farming in the 30s, instead like Hitler he deluded himself with false “science” into believing that it was well-intentioned. The biggest danger is “well-intentioned pseudoscientific dogma”: the “safe” belief that it was necessary step on the road to global communist utopia, likewise Hitler gassed 6 million “safe” in his eugenics pseudoscience belief he was ethnically “cleansing” humanity genetically Yeah, right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody will ever get through to people like Al Gore, they’re all completely deluded and have invested all they have in a pseudoscience politically-expedient belief system which devalues objectivity.
AGW is debunked by Dr Roy Spencer: negative feedback from H2O is being censored out by circular arguments, just as criticisms of eugenics in the 1930s were censored out using ad hominem attacks and unproved assertions by “authorities” like famous eugenicists such as gas chamber promoter Medical Nobel Laureates like Alexis Carrell (who suggested murdering people in gas chambers in his evil but then-fashionable and widely media-loved 1935 pro-eugenics best seller, “Man the Unknown”). If you warm the ocean surface a bit (which covers 71% of the globe, unlike a greenhouse) the evaporated water forms extra clouds which cool the altitudes below the clouds and due to convective rising of warm air there is no mechanism for vertical mixing so the surface stays cool (rainfall doesn’t originate from the upper surfaces of clouds, and raindrops undergo air drag and pass on their heat to the air rapidly to the surrounding air anyway, before reaching the surface). In a “greenhouse” this convection infrared-warmed moist air evaporated from an ocean to form sunlight-blocking clouds at several thousand feet altitude can’t happen due to a glass ceiling, which all IPCC “greenhouse effect” models implicitly assume! It is obvious therefore that there is no greenhouse effect possible on a planet with water oceans, only in glass ceiling greenhouses and on planets which don’t have water oceans (Mars and Venus). Modern-day eugenicists just want to profit from the green carbon credits, selling quack books and quack newspaper articles, acquiring cult status, etc. Actually the climate is always varying so there is 50% chance of rising temperatures, 50% of falling temperatures. This reduces the statistical value of correlations of CO2 and temperature when you take account of the fact that there is a 50% chance of an apparent “correlation”. The lie is finally starting to unravel:
– Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
Nothing gained in search for ‘theory of everything’
By Dr Robert Matthews
Financial Times, London. Published: June 2 2006 19:45“They call their leader The Pope, insist theirs is the only path to enlightenment and attract a steady stream of young acolytes to their cause. A crackpot religious cult? No, something far scarier: a scientific community that has completely lost touch with reality and is robbing us of some of our most brilliant minds.
“Yet if you listened to its cheerleaders – or read one of their best-selling books or watched their television mini-series – you, too, might fall under their spell. You, too, might come to believe they really are close to revealing the ultimate universal truths, in the form of a set of equations describing the cosmos and everything in it. Or, as they modestly put it, a “theory of everything”.
“This is not a truth universally acknowledged. For years there has been concern within the rest of the scientific community that the quest for the theory of everything is an exercise in self-delusion. This is based on the simple fact that, in spite of decades of effort, the quest has failed to produce a single testable prediction, let alone one that has been confirmed. …
“Most theorists pay at least lip-service to falsifiability, popularised by the philosopher Karl Popper, according to which scientific ideas must open themselves up to being proved wrong. Yet those involved in the quest for the theory of everything believe themselves immune from such crass demands. Mr Woit quotes a superstring theorist [lenny susskind] dismissing the demand for falsifiability as “pontification by the ‘Popperazi’ about what is and what is not science”. …
“Coming from a community that refers to Prof Witten as The Pope this is a bit rich. But it also suggests the whole field is now propped up solely by faith. Woit provides plenty of evidence for this: the insistence of M-theorists that in the quest for ultimate answers, theirs is “the only game in town”; the lectures with titles such as The Power and the Glory of String Theory; the cultivation of the media to ensure wide-eyed coverage of every supposed “revelation”. …
“But why should the rest of us care? The reason is simple: the quest for the theory of everything has soaked up vast amounts of intellectual effort and resources at a time when they are desperately needed elsewhere. … the huge intellectual effort needed to enter the field compelling them to plough on regardless of the prospects of success. It is time they were put out of their misery by being told to either give up or find funding from elsewhere (charities supporting faith-based pursuits have been suggested as one alternative).
“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 writer is visiting reader in science at Aston University, Birmingham
Malcolm Gladwell, a former science writer for the Washington Post, in 2000 wrote The Tipping Point (Little, Brown and Co.). Gladwell explains on pages 258-9 that fashion is often counter intuitive:
“The world … does not accord with our intuition. … Those who are successful at creating social epidemics do not just do what they think is right. They deliberately test their intuitions. Without the evidence … careful psychological testing demonstrated the powerful influence of context. … human communication has its own set of very unusual and counterintuitive rules. … We like to think of ourselves as autonomous and inner-directed, that who we are and how we act is something permanently set up by our genes and our temperament. … We are actually powerfully influenced by our surroundings, our immediate context, and the personalities of those around us.”
Educational psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (Lawrence Kohlberg, “Stage and Sequence: the Cognitive Development Approach to Socialization,” in D. A. Goslin, Ed., Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, Rand-McNally, Co., Chicago, 1969, pp. 347-380) has found that peoples go through six stages of ethical development:
(1) Conformity to rules and obediance to authority, to avoid punishment.
(2) Conformity to gain rewards.
(3) Conformity to avoid rejection.
(4) Conformity to avoid censure. (Chimps and baboons.)
(5) Arbitrariness in enforcing rules, for the common good.
(6) Conscious revision and replacement of unhelpful rules.
The same steps could be expected to apply to scientific ethical development. However, the disguised form of politics which exists in science, where decisions are taken behind closed doors and with no public discussion of evidence, stops at stage (4), the level of ethics that chimpanzees and baboons have been observed to achieve socially in the wild. Jean-Jacques Rousseau states in The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, 1st ed., 1762, book III, chapter 4, Democracy:
“In the strict sense of the term, there has never been a true democracy, and there never will be. It is contrary to the natural order that the greatest number should govern … One can hardly imagine that all the people would sit permanently in an assembly to deal with public affairs; and one can easily see that they could not appoint commissions for that purpose without the form of administration changing.”
If that is true of so-called democracy with all its efforts to inform the public and to collect votes, then it is all the more pertinent to science itself, where a handful of big-shots decide behind closed doors what to publish, what to censor, and where the majority of the rank and file behave like chimpanzees and baboons, brainwashing themselves with the falsehood that elitist liar censorship is the correct scientific methodology because they believe they have no chance of changing it (exactly the groupthink in the USSR/Nazi/Saddam/Gadaffi/etc/etc evil regimes of tyranny). The so-called enlightenment that began roughly with Copernicus in 1500, has ended up replacing a system of religion with another faith-based system, the “superstring.” Ed Witten and arXiv are not holding a gun to your head, you’re holding your own gun to your own head.
“… when innovations creep into their games and constant changes are made in them, the children cease to have a sure standard of what is right … There can be no worse evil … Change … is most dangerous …” – Plato (429-347 B.C.), The Laws, Book VII, 360 B.C.
This attitude of Plato towards innovations is explained well by a study of his book Timaeus, in which Plato claims that the universe is mathematically described by Euclid’s five regular geometric polygons (perfectly inscribed within a sphere): earth atoms are cubic, air is octahedrons, energy is tetrahedrons, water is icosahedrons; the universe is a dodecahedron. Curved spacetime geometry continues such speculation, as is the 10/11-dimensional M-theory of spin-2 gravitons. Plato insistence that innovation and change even in games is most dangerous, because they may be confused, is very convenient for status quo.
“A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, an aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind …” – John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859.
“The very magnitude of the power over men’s minds that a highly centralised and government-dominated system of education places in the hands of the authorities ought to make one hesitant before accepting it too readily.” – Professor F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1960, p. 379.
“The Correspondence Principle says that every new theory must contain the old theory as a sub-set … the Correspondence Principle … would have forced the retention of phlogiston and of caloric … political systems develop procedures which outlaw the change of those systems.” – Ivor Catt, letter to author dated 28 April 1997.
“Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.” – David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.
“Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.” – George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty Four, Chancellor
Press, London, 1984, p. 225.
The final solution to the Ed Witten/AGW/eugenics/consensus problem
Objective censorship! Replace arbitrarily subjective “peer”-review (which only works where someone has peers, and doesn’t work for real scientific innovations, which are not merely incremental increases in phlogiston theory) with objective censorship, that favours the publication of checkable and confirmed scientific results over disproved, deluded, bitter media-hyped, overpaid, unethical, ranting, spin-2 graviton liars and the deluded consensus funding committees, book publishers, journal editors, “peer”-reviewers, and “prize” committees who rewarded evil, like Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel’s eugenics gas chamber plans. We need more censorship of lying thugs, so that the facts have a chance of being taken seriously! Everyone who conforms to “peer”-review and arXiv is anti-Einstein:
“[Einstein’s] final manuscript was prepared and sent to the Physical Review. It was returned to him accompanied by a lengthy referee report in which clarifications were requested. Einstein was enraged and wrote to the editor [27 July 1936] that he objected to his paper being shown to colleagues before publication … Einstein … never published in the Physical Review again.”
– Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982, p. 495.
Publish the facts, and see how long it takes for the tipping point to be reached. If you view the glass as half-empty and think “I need to conform to eugenics (or whatever) because it is mainstream and I will be hissed at if I don’t fully conform”, you are at the ethical level of a chimp. While everybody thinks like that, we have a situation akin to everybody dropping litter in the park, “safe” in the belief that if they stop dropping litter, it makes no difference because everyone else will continue to do so. Until that mindset changes, the place remains a dump.
Quantum field theory 
