Peter Woit vs. elitist snobbery by journals

Peter Woit, the wavefunction amplitude assumption by J.S. Bell and other non-relativistic 1st quantization quacks, the multiple wavefunction amplitudes for the path integral which debunk Bell’s inequality assumptions, the censorship of facts by inequality dictators, elitist snobbery by journals, and the freedom of the press barons and supposedly liberal communists to censor unfashionable facts and half-baked ideas

Here’s some less funny news for a change.  As Peter Woit finishes off his monumental and very interesting textbook, Quantum Theory, Groups and Representations: An Introduction, currently 601 pages (October 20, 2016 version), which I will review when completed, he’s taking politically correct potshots at journals which publish half baked heresies by outsiders:

Retraction at Annals of Physics

Retraction Watch reports that Annals of Physics has removed a recently published article by Joy Christian, replacing it by a publisher’s note that just says:

“This article was erroneously included in this issue. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.”

The paper is available on the arXiv here. Christian’s affiliation in the abstract is listed as “Oxford”. This refers to the Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics which is not at Oxford University, but at a location in the town that I think I unknowingly walked past on my way to go punting last week. The only person involved with the centre who lists an academic affiliation is Dr. Jay R. Yablon (MIT), who appears to be a patent attorney in Schenectady.

This story brings back memories of the Bogdanov affair of 2002, one aspect of which was the publication by the Bogdanovs in Annals of Physics of a paper that, as far as I could tell, made little sense. That paper was never removed or retracted. The editor-in-chief when the Bogdanov paper was accepted was Roman Jackiw. Frank Wilczek took over from him and said at the time that he was hoping to improve the journal’s standards. The current editor-in-chief is my Columbia colleague Brian Greene.

Comments are off since I would rather not host a discussion involving the merits of this paper. I haven’t tried to seriously read it, and don’t want to spend time doing so. In the Bogdanov case I spent (wasted…) a lot of time reading their papers, so felt comfortable discussing them, not about to do the same in this case.

That is at first glance plain arrogant and unreasonable: if you “don’t want to spend time” trying to seriously read a paper, you’re not qualified to make any comment whatsoever about it.  However, we live in a world where any publicity is so precious that “all publicity is good publicity”, in other words, taking flack for supposed heresies and being crucified for it, whether your name is Jesus Christ or Donald Trump, may be the only way to motivate people to say anything, to have any real debate.

The withdrawn paper notice on sciencedirect.com states:

“This article has been withdrawn at the request of the Editors.  Soon after the publication of this paper was announced, several experts in the field contacted the Editors to report errors.  After extensive review, the Editors unanimously concluded that the results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact, i.e., violation of local realism that has been demonstrated not only theoretically but experimentally in recent experiments. On this basis, the Editors decided to withdraw the paper.” (Emphasis added in bold type.)

Now, the problem of looking to conventionality to decide whether a new paper is right or wrong is sometimes called the Galileo problem: in other words, common sense and “established fact” has turned out wrong in the past.  The “flat Earthers” who could prove their ideas by experiments on samples of flat Earth and then extend the concept to the whole planet, were not censored out for being lunatics.  They were the ones censoring.  They censored the idea that the Earth is spherical, and refused to find the time to discuss evidence.

I know Bell’s work is based on the assumption of the correctness of first quantization, i.e. a single wavefunction that is indeterministic, as in the Schroedinger equation. In fact, second quantization shows that you have a separate wavefunction amplitude for each path or interaction with the real particle and an infinite number of offshell or virtual field quanta, which must be summed in the path integral. It is the addition of all these different path amplitudes, each proportional by exp(iS) where S is the action of the virtual particle interaction path, which produces the interference of these paths in the path-integral, and thereby causes all of the indeterminancy. Feynman’s 1985 book “QED” explains how this invalidates and replaces the old fashioned uncertainty principle of first quantization, such as Schroedinger’s equation, which Bell’s work is based on. Since Bell ignores this physical mechanism of multiple path wavefunction amplitudes interfering to produce indeterminancy, by Bell’s choosing to represent only a single wavefunction amplitude exp(iHt), all of his statistical analysis is obfuscating and misguided.

The path integral approach derives from the multiple virtual particles in the field (the field quanta) of Dirac’s relativistic equation which supersedes Schroedinger’s non-relativistic equation, in other words when you replace Schroedinger’s flawed non-relativistic Hamiltonian with Dirac’s spinor Hamiltonian, you are naturally led to the reality of field quanta and each interaction with a field quanta contributes a wavefunction amplitude.  The interferences of these amplitudes using the path integral replace the 1st quantization “uncertainty principle”, a fact that Feynman makes clear graphically for several examples in “QED” (the 1985 book, not the 1965 one he co-authored with Albert Hibbs!).

I downloaded Joy Christian’s paper On the Fatal Mistake Made by John S. Bell in the Proof of His Famous Theorem (also athttps://www.academia.edu/25514662/On_the_Fatal_Mistake_Made_by_John_S._Bell_in_the_Proof_of_His_Famous_Theorem) because I studied Bell’s work in detail while a physics undergraduate, and found that these facts about the failure of Bell to look at path integrals, which we’ve made clear on this blog for years, are ignored.  Instead, disappointingly, Christian tries to use the old trick of pointing out that Bell relies on unobservables: “That is to say, no physical experiment can ever be performed … that can meaningfully measure or evaluate the above average, since none of these quantities could have experimentally observable values.”

Let’s now make a comment about the current religion of the uncertainty principle.  Basically, the conventional textbook hype in modern physics is inverted from reality: almost all of the particles in the universe, leptons, quarks, even dark energy and dark matter, are producing effects on us all the time via their gravity fields and other fields.  To answer Einstein’s famous question to the Bohr-rights: “Is the Moon there when you are not looking?”, you are always “looking” at the moon and at every subatomic particle in the radioactive nucleus controlling the fate of Schroedinger’s cat, because the Moon and those particles have fields that are continually affecting us: gravity, dark energy, electromagnetism etc.  If the Moon really disappeared, massive tidal effects would occur.  Regarding radioactivity, the very clear differences in half lives between different nuclei point not to indeterminism but to a definite shell structure.

Electron spins likewise determine the magnetic fields of magnets.  Sure, there is randomness as observes in mechanical situations as in Brownian motion, but the fact is that the alleged non-relativistic 1st quantization wavefunctions (even if such a non-relativistic model were valid) are always “collapsed by measurement” into a definite state condition, as we observe when we measure the average properties of a good sample size to eliminate small-scale randomness.  The half life of plutonium-239 nuclei is deterministic for large sample sizes, and differs from the half life of  Americium-241 nuclei.  And you don’t even need a large sample: alpha particles are emitted with discrete energies (like nuclear gamma rays, unlike beta particles) and Gamow’s tunnelling formula (better understood with 2nd quantization, i.e. a particulate field barrier which offers a statistical penetration probability by a particle “missing field quanta” by analogy to a football missing a crowd of defenders and scoring a goal, than by classical 1st quantization field concepts!) relates half life with alpha particle energy.

You can measure an individual alpha particle energy with a zinc sulphide phosphor, a photomultiplier and a pulse height discriminator, therefore, and get a pretty good estimate of the half life. Americum-241 always emits 5.486 MeV alpha particles, corresponding to a half life of 432.2 years; plutonium has longer half life (24,110 years) because it emits lower energy alpha particles, 5.245 MeV which therefore take longer to break through the barrier of virtual pions and other discrete particles that act to bind the nucleus together.

As Feynman explains in that 1985 book “QED” which we keep referring everyone to read, every electron in a block of glass is influencing and being influenced by every other one, which explains the otherwise counter-intuitive fact that a photon has a probability of reflecting off the front face of a block of glass that depends on the thickness of the glass, something that a photon merely interacting with the front will not be affected by, unless – as is in fact the case – the electrons vibration frequencies are a function of the thickness of the glass, so that even the electrons on the front of the glass are affected by the thickness of it, before the photon arrives.

On the topic of heresy, a question in a comment on the previous post stimulated a reaction from me on quantum gravity:

Yes, quantum gravity as I show at http://vixra.org/pdf/1302.0004v2.pdf as well as http://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0187v1.pdf and with diagrams that are easy to grasp and understand at http://vixra.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf or http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 does predict all non-Newtonian gravitational contraction effects, which replicate and derive general relativity’s predictions precisely, just as you list! In fact, Einstein’s own original derivation of the field equations show that energy conservation accounts for the contraction numerically, which is precisely what we’re doing physically. Newton’s equation ignores the fact that a falling apple can’t acquire kinetic energy from nothing. What’s occurring is that the gravitational field’s potential energy is being reduced as the apple acquires a corresponding amount of kinetic energy.

All of the general relativity predictions that differ from Newton’s come from the contraction term, which Feynman showed (see his 1963 Lectures on Physics) is a contraction, a gravitational version of the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of restricted or special relativity.

The contraction due to the distortion of space is small for most Newtonian situations; in fact it is something like 1.5mm for Earth’s mass equivalent. You get it by replacing v in the Lorentz transformation with escape velocity, and dividing the resulting contraction by 3 to account for the fact that only 1 dimension is contracted by linear motion (the dimension in the direction of that motion), whereas gravitational compression contracts three spatial dimensions.

In fact, the key differences between Newtonian gravitation and the mechanism of quantum gravity in http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 are that the quantum gravity mechanism predicts additionally (1) all of local general relativity predictions, (2) predicts dark energy quantitatively, which general relativity fails to do, and (3) predicts the quantization of masses, which neither Newtonian gravity nor general relativity does.

I think it is time that http://vixra.org/abs/1111.0111 was rewritten and improved from the popular standpoint.  The physics snobs are flat Earth “facters” when it comes to new ideas that contradict their money-spinning quackery, and they are also hypocrites, usually with regard to claiming vocally to demand equality when their actions enforce inequality.  (Though maybe some of them claim they’re communists and will give away all their money as soon as everyone else does.  Conveniently, they back equality only where it can never exist, and resist equality where they could make a difference! But power tends to corrupt scientists more than politicians.  At least Trump and Hillary are having debates.)

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Peter Woit vs. elitist snobbery by journals

  1. Update: I’ve just deleted some quack comments. Just a reminder, if you haven’t read Feynman’s 1985 book “QED” and have only read his 1965 book on path integrals (co-authored with Albert Hibbs, his PhD student), then I suggest you have a glance at my earlier posts which the subject of this post has TOTALLY IGNORED:

    https://nige.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/second-quantization-qft-is-physically-correct-and-debunks-metaphysical-quantum-mechanics/

    and

    https://nige.wordpress.com/path-integrals/

    There is also a discussion in several other posts such as this email exchange with a nasty, self-absorbed , egotistic confused, deluded and brain dead Physics Nobel Laureate and metaphysicist (no known relation to eugenics gas chamber quack Dr Alexis Carrell who helped popularize the holocaust in his bestseller Man the Unknown, after the Nuremberg laws made it illegal to be both a human being and a Jew): https://nige.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/josephson-email-2.pdf

    Cheers!

  2. Update (28 October 2016): the email PDF is now on Internet Archive at https://archive.org/details/NCOnRelativisticSecondQuantizationRealityInQFT

    NC On Relativistic Second Quantization Reality In QFT

    A brief explanation of the difference between first quantization (non-relativistic, single wavefunction) Bell inequality hogwash, and the reality of multiple wavefunction (path integral over all field quanta mediated interactions, with the mechanism for indeterminancy being not magic but instead MULTIPATH INTERFERENCE between ACTUAL INTERACTIONS OF LONG-LIFE ONSHELL PARTICLES WITH FLUCTUATION FIELD QUANTA AKA OFFSHELL PARTICLES), second quantization!

    For further details, please see https://nige.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/peter-woit-vs-elitist-snobbery-by-journals (comments section) and related posts on that blog. Thank you for reading.

    Hashtags:
    Quantum field theory, quantum mechanics, 1st quantization, 2nd quantization, relativistic quantum mechanics, Brian Josephson, Evil, Stupidity, Moron, Zombie

  3. Just a reminder. I will delete abusive comments and quackery concerning “how climate change has killed off red herrings in the oceans”, or “how climate change is statistically well correlated with the growth of the legalization of homosexuality suggesting a causation”, or “how Donald Trump might really be an albino black man who has undergone a sex change”.

    This blog is science with strong evidence to back it up, not speculative crap like string theory or eugenics propaganda.

    Thank you.

  4. Hi Peter

    I am a lawyer, not a scientist, but I have been working on your problem holistically, and you will benefit from my mechanisms for gravitation (graviton loop of string) and electromagnetism (photon loop of string). In my model, photons are the limit to graviton density when used with an anticlockwise backwards rotation with forward motion at light speed, while gravitons have clockwise forward rotation with forward motion at light speed. They both operate in a void of infinite space and time.

    “IF” one graviton could travel on a parallel path with another graviton, and then double its speed to move past it, the other graviton would look like a photon, and relative to the “doubled speed graviton” it would represent density at light speed in the opposite direction to graviton momentum. Gravitons are energetic, and they counter shear by common clockwise rotations to widen their loops in a void and create compressions between particle masses exchanging them. The counter shear from being looped creates density to the string that is looped, so motion is created towards the compression by widening of loops, while density is created to the string that is looped. This adds momentum from density without adding motion, as in the classic graphs for acceleration of masses near to but, not exceeding, light speed in labs . Photons are their limit to density, to draw momentum into particle densities as compounding atoms. In short, mass (gravitons) makes concentrated surface and neutral centres (like Earth itself in a void), while charge (photons) makes concentrated centres and neutral surfaces (like a neutron in a void), and that sets up all their relations, to compromise.

    Have a read of my work for clues to your own work, but realize that mine is holistic, and covers all fields of science. You might enjoy my rebellious perspective. My one page download site is thehumandeisgn.net and my onedrive link for direct download is 1drv.ms/1tnKM6f

    Regards

    Marcus Morgan
    Melbourne, Australia

  5. PS What I find interesting about the Uncertainty Principle is how uninteresting it is. Heisenberg and others are amazed that momentum cannot be measured in one place at one time, and amazed that we are limited to measuring only the distance of a wavelength. We cannot close the place and time coordinated to less than the two ends of the wavelength. We can only approximate its momentum between those two ends.

    I have no problem with this at all, and whilst there are many things that can arise within the distance of a wavelength, the absence of knowledge within that scale does not mean magic is happening. I have no problem for the obvious reason that BY DEFINITION, momentum cannot be measured at one place and time, and not because of a mysterious reality of nature. Momentum is DEFINED using motion and direction, and BY DEFINITION motion is measured using two place and two time coordinates, for motion between them. Motion does not exist at one place and one time, it “moves” between two coordinates, and direction likewise does not exist at one place and time, it is an angle between two coordinates.

    All physics concerning momentum is in fact metaphysics. It is beyond the bounds of what is directly measureable, by definition, and it is open to logical speculation. Some of that logical speculation is useful and some useless.

  6. Hi Marcus,

    I’ve approved your comments (above) addressed to Dr Peter Woit, but the chance of him reading them is the same as string theory ever making a falsifiable prediction. This is my (Nige Cook) blog, not Peter’s which is at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ If you leave carefully written comments on his blog, make sure you copy and paste a backup in Word, just in case he decides to delete them.

    You unhelpfully mistyped your webpage url in your comment. Clearly it is: http://thehumandesign.net/ and I have downloaded the 166 page PDF book “The Human Design” you have linked there to your Microsoft onedrive cloud.

    Regarding the statement in your first comment: “In my model, photons are the limit to graviton density when used with an anticlockwise backwards rotation with forward motion at light speed, while gravitons have clockwise forward rotation with forward motion at light speed”, I have to demand you put this into some kind of physically comprehensible context.

    As a sentence, it’s very unhelpful. Moving on, your sentence:

    ““IF” one graviton could travel on a parallel path with another graviton, and then double its speed to move past it, the other graviton would look like a photon, and relative to the “doubled speed graviton” it would represent density at light speed in the opposite direction to graviton momentum.”

    is a little better. If you’re suggesting that there is a relationship between photons and gravitons, great, but please provide evidence if not equations for the “model”. I’m into unorthodox approaches, but it helps to build models on evidence and to make predictions or at least to tie up observations that can’t be adequately related by existing theories. According to my calculation (paper cited above on vixra), dark energy is a U(1) interaction which produces gravity by a Casimir type attraction mechanism (particles being pushed together). Having gone through your 166 page PDF document, I don’t see any explanation or calculations that give a basis for the statements in your comments, and the diagrams don’t look helpful. You have no mathematics or calculations. I don’t really think you’ve put enough elbow grease into building a model.

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