Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Monday, December 05, 2005


Inspired some comments from me.

Same here:

Just added some background notes here: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/. The on-line editing tool has deleted paragraph indentations, but as I'm not bothered whether anybody reads background information about me personally, I couldn't care less. If you just want the science: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

List of crazy professors who should be censored from the media

‘Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here at Padua is the principal professor of philosophy [Professor Cremonini] whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa [Professor Giulio Libri] labouring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.’ Letter from Galileo to Kepler, 1610 (Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, London, 1913, Chapter 4).

1. Double Dutch:

2. 'String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'. - Edward Witten, Physics Today, April 1996, more at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41454

3. Single Dutch: http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/charlatans-who-use-gravitons.html

4. Royal Society: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/royal-society-ban-science-on-web.html

5. 'Dark energy' nutters: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/supernovae-lambda-is-constant.html

6. Pope Edward the Great Genius Witten: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/12/witten-and-langlands.html

There is also an interesting Motl piece on quantum entanglement:

Measuring the spin of photons doesn't necessarily change then like measuring the spin of molecules that Einstein suggested. It is clearer to think of 1 m wide (transverse wavelength) radio waves, than photons. One electromagnetic pulse to the aerial gives you 'one photon'. You can measure the polarisation by means of a field strength meter connected to a straight aerial. You don't need an aerial as long as the wavelength of the radio aerial, because you can vary the resonate frequency of the receiver aerial by adding a loading coil. If you do that, you are detecting radio waves by affecting only a small part of the transverse wavelength! If you measure the spin of a photon (going at light speed), for any change to be caused by the act of measurement, you have to assume that an effect can pass throughout the photon's transverse extent instantaneously, otherwise the 'remainder' of the photon will have passed by before the rest of it can be affected.The assumption used in the theory behind the Bell test is crackpot. Therefore the result is crackpot.

On Multiple Universes Crackpotism

If I understand the crackpots at all, everytime I measure something, the wavefunction collapses, selecting the universe we are in. If it is a coin toss situation, then there are two parallel universes, one in which it lands heads and the other has the coin landing tails. If the situation has an infinite number of possibilities, for example a photon which may be emitted in any number of directions at random, then collapsing the wavefunction selects one out of not just two but an infinite number of parallel universes. Now you repeatedly measure things where they could go any direction, you create an infinite number of universes each time (each universe containing the photon going in a different direction). So when you look at it objectively, for N decisions involving wavefunction collapses that create an infinite number of universes of which ours is one, you have (infinity).N parallel universes, which exceeds infinity! I'd be prepared to stake my life on the fact that the photon spins correlate because Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle doesn't apply to measuring photon polarisations: you can't apply indeterminancy to light, only to electrons. This is because when you measure light, the measurement can't change it as its going at light speed.For the measurement process to affect a light photon, changing its polarisation or whatever, you have to assume that the effect goes faster than light so that the whole photon is influenced. This assumption is metaphysics. Indeterminacy doesn't apply to photons. If you stick to mechanisms, there is no reason why it should. (Of course, now I have to be written off by Lumos as a crackpot with a 'personal pet theory' instead of taken seriously.) The way officialdom interprets experimental results, I'm sure string theory will be experimentally validated soon. Peter Woit admitted a few days ago on this blog that he validated some of Edward Witten QCD theory work, so I'm waiting for Woit to come up with a validation of Witten's string theory. Woit could do it very easily, by observing an apple drop. Witten in April 1996 (Physics Today) wrote that string theory 'has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'. Notice: no prediction of numbers, so it can't be falsified. Therefore, it is accepted!

Gluon crackpotism and string theory

I've taken to calling people who deny general relativity 'flat earthers', since gravity causes the shape of the earth, and special/restricted relativity ignores the curvature due to gravity and (by the equivalence principle) other accelerations. To account for the real world you need absolute motions, such as rotation with respect to the rest of the matter in the universe, not with respect to an observer. People who deny this can get themselves into a spin dryer machine, and will find that even though they are not in relative motion to the clothes or to the inside of the dryer, all still experience accelerative force. Restricted relativity does't apply!


The issue of whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions in ST reminds you of the issue whether there are 8 or 9 gluons in QCD. James Bottomley and John Baez discuss this herehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/gluons.html

Nine types of gluon:

green-antigreen, green-antired, green-antiblue,
red-antired, red-antiblue, red-antigreen,
blue-antiblue, blue-antired, blue-antigreen.

Why then are there only eight gluons? To make the physics work, you have to subtract one, but you don’t say which particular one you subtract. They concluded:

“If you are wondering what the hell I am doing subtracting particles from each other, well, that’s quantum mechanics. This may have made things seem more, rather than less, mysterious, but in the long run I’m afraid this is what one needs to think about.”

More crackpotism debunked


Comment on the last of these links:

Boltzmann's contribution was vital, but had a tragic outcome. Towards the end of the nineteenth century several puzzling facts (which eventually led to quantum theory), triggered a reaction against 'materialist' science, and some people even questioned whether atoms exist. Boltzmann, whose work was based on the concept of atoms, found himself cast as their chief defender and the debates became increasingly bitter. Always prone to bouts of depression, Boltzmann came to believe that his life's work had been rejected by the scientific community, although this was far from being true. In 1906, he committed suicide. If despair over rejection, or frustration over being unable to prove his point, were contributing factors the irony would be great indeed. Soon after Boltzmann's death, clinching evidence was found for atoms, and few would ever doubt their existence again.

It is nice that the scientific community is never wrong, and that so many people are never all wrong! It is nice that they don't call people egotists or ignore work (because of their religious belief in Mach's or Bohr's philosophy). Notice also that revisionist history avoids the statement that Jesus was crucified by the mass and only had 12 real followers, one of whom was a doubter and another of whom betrayed Jesus. Instead, revisionist history says Jesus was crucified deliberately to accord to supernatural scripture, and that Jesus was really a very popular figure! See http://archivefreedom.org/. The problem is, any revolutionary theory is going to be unpopular by its revolutionary nature. What you have to do, however, is to fight against lack of clarity but continuing to develop the simplicity, so that people understand it. The major weapon in favour of status quo is that it is (claimed to be) clear and concise (which is a lie, when you ask there are really 10 or 11 dimensions in M-theory, or 8 or 9 gluons in QCD).


At 12:04 PM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


You need to justify your assertion that your "one electromagnetic pulse" is a photon, as opposed to an enormous number of photons going around in a gang (with their hoodies over their faces so you can't tell them apart.)

See also

At 3:59 AM, Blogger nige said...

The "electromagnetic pulse" I referred to is the electrical energy pulse sent into the aerial.

It is not a photon.

The radio wave is not a quantum phenomenon, it isn't a quantum transition effect. I have complete control over the frequency of radio waves I emit, which is not the case for light photons.

I've proved that radiowaves are displacement current, not quantum transition radiation here.

At 6:10 AM, Blogger Kevin Brunt said...


you said: "One electromagnetic pulse to the aerial gives you 'one photon'."

Then you said: " The "electromagnetic pulse" .... is not a photon."

You appear to be contradicting yourself.

You are trying to argue a "self-evident" case against quantum mechanical situation using words like "instantaneous". Since even in classical physics relying on "it's obvious" can lead to great embarassment, and as soon as you get into the realms of relativity the concept of simultaneity goes out of the window, your "proof" is is worthless.

At 9:44 AM, Blogger nige said...


An electromagnetic pulse to the aerial is the signal flowing through the feeder. Electromagnetic pulses can be guided by a single conductor in the case of radio.

The 'photon' is defined as the energy leaving a conductor.

In the case of a plasma of conducting ionised gas, it can give rise to an electromagnetic pulse.

If you look at this sort of thing in nuclear explosions, the original term used for the radiated signal was "radioflash" (Glasstone 1962/4), while "electromagnetic pulse" was reserved for what was occurred in the central conducting plasma near detonation, and also for energy induced in cables running out from the explosion.

Later, the term "electromagnetic pulse" was used for both what you get from cables and for the radiated radio frequency energy.

None of these semantics have anything to do with the physics I want to discuss on my blog, Kevin.

However it allows you to be abusive. By the way, do you know anything about crank.net? You didn't try to get me free publicity there, by any chance? ;-)

At 10:07 PM, Blogger Plato said...

crackpotism debunked?

That wasn't very nice. :)

At 2:57 AM, Blogger nige said...


Do you think the Greek philosopher Plato would be happy for you to use his name, when your speculations are untestable (at least the real Plato's speculations could and were tested, and were found to be false). You are not in the same category as the real Plato. The real Plato was wrong, which is one step up from untestable speculation which is 'not even wrong'.

If it would help, I will change my description of your untestable ideas from 'Single Dutch' to say 'Dutch Courage' (did you drink while coming up with untestable metaphysics?)

The flood of metaphysics under the guise of string 'theory' seriously damages the chances of getting serious attention for the experimentally validated facts!

Ivor Catt in Electronics World September 2003 issue, ‘EMC - A Fatally Flawed Discipline’ pages 44-52:

‘during the Falklands War, the British warship HMS Sheffield had to switch off its radar looking for incoming missiles ... This is why it did not see incoming Exocet missiles, and you know the rest. How was it that after decades of pouring money into the EMC community, this could happen ... that community has gone into limbo, sucking in money but evading the real problems, like watching for missiles while you talk to HQ.’

More deaths linked to the suppression of Catt’s work: Electronics World, January 2003, pp12-14:

‘In July last year, problems with the existing system were highlighted by the tragic death of 71 people, including 50 school children, due to the confusion when Swiss air traffic control noticed too late that a Russian passenger jet and a Boeing 757 were on a collision path. The processing of extensive radar and other aircraft input information for European air space is a very big challenge, requiring a reliable system to warn air traffic controllers of impending disaster. So why has Ivor Catt’s computer solution for Air Traffic Control been ignored by the authorities for 13 years?’ – http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm and http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ewk.htm

How on earth does the media worship ‘string theory’ which is ‘not even wrong’, while ignoring the proved experimental facts which won Ivor Catt the ‘Product of the Year Award’ from the U.S. journal Electronic Products, in January 1990 after Sir Clive Sinclair’s offshoot computer company, Anamartic, invested £16 million (see http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm)? Maxwell’s equations have failed to predict light properly (they predict electrons in an atom will radiate continuously and spiral into the nucleus, instead of gaining and losing energy in discrete steps like Catt’s capacitor - an atom is basically a capacitor, separated positive and negative charge) so they predict a false light spectrum in which power becomes infinite at short wavelengths. These failures of Maxwell were known with the early development of quantum theory, 1900-16. Despite this, crackpots still falsely claim they are correct, and that the failure lies in quantum mechanics. Are electrons electromagnetic energy trapped by gravity, black holes? Below we will test the conclusion that the gravity (black hole) trapped Heaviside-Poynting energy forms an electron. This disproves the crackpot claim of string theorists, based on Planck’s dimensional analysis, that the size of fundamental particle cores is Planck size. The black hole size is much smaller. The entire philosophy of string theory is dictatorial nonsense with zero evidence.

‘It always bothers me that, according to the [path integral] 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 space/time 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.’ – Professor Richard P. Feynman, Character of Physical Law, Penguin, 1992, pp 57-8.

In the same book Feynman discusses the pushing gravity mechanism as of November 1964, when it was in crisis. Feynman’s error was ignoring his own heuristic Feynman diagram approach, ignoring the physical reality of gauge bosons in space causing forces, ignoring the reality of particle spin which continuously radiates gauge bosons, and the Prevost equilibrium process which allows radiating charges to receive energy. The ‘drag’ he objected to is the very radiation pressure of gauge bosons which causes the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction in the direction of motion, as well as the general relativity contraction term which is a physical contraction around mass, caused by radiation pressure, as demonstrated below. In a fluid, pressure is scattered and dispersed in all directions by molecular collisions (so air pressure horizontally is similar to that vertically), but the vacuum does not scatter and disperse gauge boson radiation. Consequently, gauge boson pressure acts in the radial direction from and towards masses, and ‘shadowing’ causes fundamental forces.


At 10:36 PM, Blogger Plato said...

I'd appreciate your Clear Presence

While Plato recogized the importance of ideas, Aristotle used his hand to tell you what?

If you weren't so blinded, you might understand my efforts were honorable, and you had made them into a instrument for your anger.

It seems you are quite capable of accessing behind the scenes while servers have not been updated.

Could you tell me how you do that? :)

At 1:31 AM, Blogger nige said...

Dear Plato,

So now you accuse ME of being "so blinded". The anger is shown by progress being stagnated because string theorists and others assume falsely that classical physics (Maxwell etc.) is final.

If Dr Peter Woit can't stop string theory dominating the media, despite running a blog 'Not Even Wrong' since March 2004, it just shows how impossible it would have been for someone falsely labelled a crackpot to have done anything politely. It is vital to get angry with the wicked people, to create a scene, or things will go on just as before.

'Wickedness is always easier than virtue, for it takes the short-cut to everything.' - Dr Samuel Johnson. Maxwell's displacement current and string theory are examples.

At 10:12 AM, Blogger Plato said...

You do not give people credit for devloping their understading but thought it better to hold the misfortune of life as their burden?

Check this out It's a links page for?

See people are quite intelligent,Non?

At 11:17 AM, Blogger nige said...

Dear Plato,

Peter Woit is now being used by string theorists as a defence: they list him to show they are brave. This is because Woit has stated he verified Witten's QCD work and respects Witten to the extent of it weakening his attack on string theory. Ultimately, if string theorists massage Woit's ego sufficiently, perhaps he will start saying nice things about strings. However, I'm not interested in string theory beyond the fact that it is a fraud which is used in the media to waste space: Witten claimed it 'has the remarkable property of predicting gravity' in Apr 96 Physics Today journal.

This led to my attempts to popularise Catt's live-saving technology being rejected by editors at Nature, PRL, CQG, etc.


Post a Comment

<< Home