Dr Peter Woit interview in Discover journal

I'm pleased about this, unlike Dr Motl and other string 'theorists'. I think Woit's own research on generating the families of Standard Model particles is very inspiring, but the personal attacks he receives for pointing out that string 'theory' has no scientific content, is astounding. Like astrology, although string 'theory' is mathematically based (astrology is supposed to be calculating the positions of stars to see when they enter sectors of sky), it nevertheless makes vague untestable predictions, and is defended viciously by those people who make money out of it by deceiving others. String 'theory' postulates extra dimensions to 'predict' unobservable gravitons vaguely (no testable or checkable predictions there), and postulates a 1:1 boson to fermion superpartner super-symmetry (SUSY) to 'explain' unobservable electroweak and strong nuclear force unification at an energy far beyond anything that could possibly be checked experimentally.

Yet it is sold as the greatest enterprise in the history of science. It cannot unify forces quantitatively in a scientific (testable) way, it cannot predict any of the many Standard Model quantum field theory numbers (particle masses, couplings, etc.). Its advocates are so paranoid that they suppressed and rejected Woit's book originally, as well as papers on 'alternatives' by many lesser people (including yours truly). String 'theory' is as totally devoid of scientific basis as Kepler's astrology calculations were. Kepler had an excuse: his real physics was suppressed as heretical nonsense. He had to live, and when his assistance to Tycho Brahe finished and teaching came to an end, he had to work as astrologer.

String 'theorists' are welcome to waste their own time, but not to brainwash the world with empty predictions, promises, 'theory'. They have no excuse to draw on the tax-payer. They have no noble cause. He has not expressed much interest in causal general relativity (virtual particle perfect fluid spacetime fabric) to unify quantum field theory and gravity, but I'd claim to be a a fan of his weblog. In fact, I just found he has retained my comment linking the Standard Model inertial mass mechanism (Higgs field) to the spacetime fabric of general relativity for gravity. People like Drs Christine Dantas, D. R. Lunsford, Tony Smith, Garrett Lisi, Chris Oakley, Torbjorn Larsson, Alejandro Rivero, Juan R., and several others are ahead in the Woit fan club. Many string theorists are included who don't believe in bigotry towards 'alternatives' and believe in healthy scepticism and debate over details, instead of the religious attitude of 'sacred science'. Woit now reports that his book is out on 1 June 2006. When he first announced it, it was due out March 06, then it was April. Hope there are no more delays!

Feynman’s statements in Davies & Brown, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, at pages 194-195:

‘… I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories - absolutely none! …’ (From Tony Smith.)

Larsson lists the following more recent experts:

Sheldon “string theory has failed in its primary goal” Glashow
Martinus “string theory is a figment of the theoretical mind” Veltman
Phil “string theory a futile exercise as physics”Anderson
Bob “string theory a 50-year-old woman wearing way too much lipstick” Laughlin
Dan “string theory is a complete scientific failure” Friedan


‘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.’- G. Orwell, 1984, Chancellor Press, London, 1984, p225.

(Ivor Catt has borrowed this quotation from a letter I sent him in 1997, and used it on his internet site. What a pity he misuses all discussion of censorship in a paranoid way which seems to amount to the message: 'Ivor Catt is the only person with good evidence of mindless or corruption based censorship', particularly when he gets the details wrong. However, he is now a politician, and is not interested in physics; at least he talks politics if you point out his errors, instead of correcting them!)

Lee Smolin's recent Perimeter lectures on LQG. He shows the connection between path integrals of quantum field theory and the field equation of general relativity using Penrose's spin networks. If the basics of QFT and the basics of GR are tested and accepted, the LQG approach is at least trying to build a basis for quantum gravity on more solid foundations than speculative string theory/landscape.

It's come up before, but there is a clear connection between the Higgs field and gravity, if the Higgs field is responsible for mass, if the equivalence principle holds. The core particle field is 'shielded' by the polarised vacuum directly around it. Koltick in 97 showed that at I think 100 GeV the coupling factor of 1/137 changed to 1/128, because of partial penetration of the vacuum. For unification at extremely high energy, the coupling would be 1/1.

If the Higgs field particles causing mass are inside the polarised vacuum veil, the coupling and hence mass is 137 times bigger than if the Higgs field particles causing mass are outside the veil. When you compare data on actual masses of leptons and hadrons to the electron mass, you find the 137 factor! See: http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook4.htm

Gravity is the force of Feynman diagram gauge bosons coming from distances/times in the past. The Standard Model, the quantum field theory of electromagnetic and nuclear interactions which has made numerous well-checked predictions, forces arise by the exchange of gauge bosons. This is well known from the pictorial ‘Feynman diagrams’ of quantum field theory. Gravitation, as illustrated by the mechanism above and proved below, is just this exchange process. Gauge bosons hit the mass and bounce back, like a reflection. This causes the contraction term of general relativity, a physical contraction of radius around a mass: (1/3)MG/c² = 1.5 mm for Earth. Newton’s gravity law is (written in tensor calculus notation):

R_{m n} = 4p GT_{m n} /c². Einstein’s result is: R_{m v} – ½g_{m n} R = 8p GT_{m n} /c².

Notice that the special term introduced is the contraction term (in red). Mass (which by the well-checked equivalence principle of general relativity is identical for inertial and gravitational forces), arises not from the fundamental core particles of matter themselves, but by a miring effect of the spacetime fabric, the ‘Higgs bosons’. Forces are exchanges of gauge bosons: the pressure causes the cosmic expansion. The big bang observable in spacetime has speed from 0 to c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years, giving outward force of F = ma = m(variation in speeds from 0 to c)/(variation in times from 0 to age of universe) ~ 7 x 10⁴³ Newtons. Newton’s 3rd law gives equal inward force, carried by gauge bosons, which are shielded by matter. The gauge bosons interact with uniform mass Higgs field particles, which do the shielding and have mass. Single free fundamental rest mass particles (electrons, positrons) can only associate with other particles by electromagnetism, which is largely shielded by the veil of polarised vacuum charges surrounding the fundamental particle core. Quarks only exist in pairs or triplets, so the fundamental particles are close enough that the intervening polarised vacuum shield effect is very weak, so they have stronger interactions.

Correcting the Hubble expansion parameter for spacetime:

At present recession speeds are divided into observed distances, H = v/R. This is ambiguous for ignoring time! The distance R is increasing all the time, so is not time independent. To get a proper Hubble ‘constant’ therefore you need to replace distance with time t = R/c. This gives recession constant as v/t which equals v/t = v/(R/c) = vc/R = cH. So the correct spacetime formulation of the cosmological recession is v/t = cH = 6 x 10^- 10 ms^-2. Outward acceleration! This means that the mass of the universe has a net outward force of F=ma = 7 x 10⁴³ N. (Assuming that F=ma is not bogus!) Newton’s 3rd law says there is an implosion inward of the same force, 7 x 10⁴³ N. (Assuming that Newton’s 3rd law is not bogus!) This predicts gravity as the shielding of this inward force of gauge boson radiation to within existing data! (Assuming that the inward force is carried by the gauge bosons which cause gravity.)

The net force is simply the proportion of the force from the projected cone (in the illustrations above), which is due to the asymmetry introduced by the effect of mass on the Higgs field(reflecting inward directed gauge bosons back). Outside the cone areas, the inward gauge boson force contributions are symmetrical from opposite directions around the observer, so those contributions all cancel out! This geometry predicts the strength of gravity very accurately!

Causal approach to loop quantum gravity (spin foam vacuum): volume contains matter and spacetime fabric, which behaves as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity. As particles move in the spacetime fabric, it has to flow out of the way somewhere. It goes into the void behind the moving particle. Hence, the spacetime fabric filling a similar volume goes in the opposite direction to moving matter, filling in the void behind. Two analogies: (1) ‘holes’ in semoconductor electronics go the other way to electrons, and (2) a 70 litre person walking south along a corridor is matched by 70 litres of air moving north. At the end, the person is at the other end to the end he was in when he started, and 70 litres of air has moved up to fill in the space he vacated. Thus, simple logic and facts give us a quantitative and predictive calculating tool: an equal volume of the fluid goes in the opposite direction with the same motion, which allows the inward vacuum spacetime fabric pressure from the big bang to be calculated. This allows gravity to be estimated the same way, with the same result as the other method. Actually, boson radiations spend part of their existence as matter-antimatter pairs. So the two calculations do not duplicate each other. If the fraction due to radiation (boson) pressure is f, that due to perfect fluid pressure is 1-f. The total remains the same: (f) + (1 - f)= 1.

About 10 years ago I wondered why the Hubble constant is defined as recession velocities divided into the star distances, when those distances are themselves increasing while the light comes to us!

Because of spacetime, you can divide the recession velocities into the time past instead, which is a true constant as it is a fixed rate of change of velocity in spacetime. It also has useful units, (m/s)/s = ms^-2, acceleration.

This implies outward force of big bang F=ma, and equal reaction due to the 3rd law. We are immediately talking the physics of a real explosion, in which there is outward pressure and thus outward force (outward force = outward pressure multiplied by area of a sphere of the radius of that pressure), and inward or 'implosion' force. Implosions are used in all nuclear weapons: TNT is placed around fissile material. When the TNT is detonated, the 3rd law of motion shows that half the force goes inward and half goes outward. That going inward compresses the core and makes it supercritical.

So this kind of physics is not really innovative: all the ingredients are well accepted. But calculating gravity by putting together known facts was dismissed as "nonsense". While at the same time, string theory approaches to gravity (based on speculative untestable assertions about 10/11 dimensions in invisibly small strings, etc.), were applauded by the media. What you want to do of course is to get the idea published so other people can develop it. I don't think you want to get a half-baked idea published for egotistic reasons. When you do get it published, say in somewhere inoffensive (unread by the mainstream!), you realise that nobody will take it up as they prefer mainstream ideas.

You don't really want to develop your own ideas, partly because it opens up a can of worms - having to get into areas of physics you don't want to be submerged in, and partly because you have no support or hope of getting anywhere.

For me the main motivation in trying to think about the big bang problems was after reading Catt's letter in the May 1995 issue of Electronics World. I had previously had an article printed there (Nov 94 issue).

Catt's long letter was quite good and well argued. My first reaction was that he (Catt) and others should not try to dismiss existing physics without putting forward a proper replacement.
In hindsight I made a massive error in studying Catt's articles (in the Victorian SRIS - Science Reference and Information Service - library in London, now long since closed down and integrated into the British Library at St Pancreas).

There were other papers in back copies of Wireless World, all ignored for the 10-20 years since publication. The problem with 'negative crackpotism' is that, if you look hard enough, you can find reasons to doubt anything. For example, several individual pieces of evidence for the big bang are not conclusive proof of the big bang because of different interpretations, but taken together it is convincing.

But when you build from one set of accepted facts to another, without speculating, that seems to be proper science. Of course proper science has been suppressed many times in the past, due to prejudice toward mainstream ideas which are really the pet speculations of a dictatorial elite (flat earth, epicycles, caloric, phlogiston, elastic solid aether, Maxwellian gear cog and idler wheel ether, Kelvin vortex atoms, etc.).

A year ago I came across Dr Peter Woit's weblog, called Not Even Wrong, which sets out to examine 'string theory' objectively. Catt's response to Woit is to dismiss it as a farce, a kind of straw man for the string theorists to use as evidence that their outlandish ideas are critically reviewed! I think differently. It doesn't matter whether string theory is right or wrong, but it does matter if it is Not Even Wrong. He has put a lot of work into running that blog efficiently, endlessly deleting off-topic or unhelpful comments, or replying to queries with helpfully constructive, readable dialogue. It would just have been too frustrating and hopeless to continue spending a lot of time on 'altarnative ideas' without that to read. Before reading Woit's blog, I was only interested in the weak nuclear force as the mechanism of beta radioactivity. Now I'm interested in electroweak symmetry breaking via the Higgs mechanism, and the problems in quantum field theory, the Standard Model, and reading some interesting arXiv.org papers he draws attention to.

Dr Lubos Motl attacked the Discovery magazine interview by saying 'It's not an alternative to anything.' Motl's diatribe then says 'crackpots' read Woit's blog, and Motl suggested that people's scholarly credentials should be checked on http://scholar.google.com/. I tried this for 'Nigel Cook' and found on page 5 of the results the 'alternative' to (actually, replacement of) string theory, with a link to an abstract here:

An electronic universe. Part 2: The Electronic Big Bang. Cook, Nigel Electronics World. Vol. 109, no. 1804, pp. 47-52. Apr. 2003 This is another article in the series questioning established theories. It discusses the concept of the single velocity universe - ie that the speed of electrical energy entering and leaving a pair of wires is that of the speed of light; the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity; the four fundamental forces in the universe; and deriving the basic equations of electromagnetism. Descriptors: ANTE; Electronics; Electromagnetism; Quantum theory; Relativity

What a shame for Motl! Similarly, Lunsford's replacement of the 5-d Kaluza-Klein theory, is listed on Google Scholar: with links to here and here. Lunsford’s CERN document server paper discusses errors in the historical attempts by Kaluza, Pauli, Klein, Einstein, Mayer, Eddington and Weyl. It proceeds to the correct unification of general relativity and Maxwell’s equations, finding 4-d spacetime inadequate. Lunsford shows that 6 dimensions in SO(3,3) is the simplest irreducible system unifying GR and electromagnetism: ‘One striking feature of these equations ... is the absent gravitational constant - in fact the ratio of scalars in front of the energy tensor plays that role. This explains the odd role of G in general relativity and its scaling behavior. The ratio has conformal weight 1 and so G has a natural dimensionfulness that prevents it from being a proper coupling constant - so this theory explains why ordinary general relativity, even in the linear approximation and the quantum theory built on it, cannot be regularized.’ Lunsford's unification also discredits the cosmological constant, in agreement with the mechanism suggested for gravity back in 1996.

Illustration credit: top illustration (showing virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum) is from Connecting Quarks with the Cosmo: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century, Committee on the Physics of the Universe, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, Washington, D.C. 2003, www.nap.edu: 'Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle tell scientists that the vacuum can never be truly empty: the constant production and then annihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs make it a seething sea of particles and antiparticles living on borrowed time and energy . … [it has] measurable effects, causing shifts in the spectrum of atomic hydrogen and in the masses of elementary particles that have been measured (e.g., W/Z bosons).'

Solution to a problem with Maxwell's electromagnetic unification

Every time you turn on the switch, electricity proceeds towards the light bulb at light speed. The circuit is open until completed by the arrival of electricity at the bulb, because the resistance of the circuit is determined by the bulb. Hence Ohm's laws and Kirchoff's laws don't apply to any transient real system like turning on the light, they are only steady-state approximations. IN ALL REAL SITUATIONS, 'DISPLACEMENT CURRENT' (WHICH IS DUE TO RADIATION, NOT THE MECHANISM MAXWELL THOUGHT) IS VITAL. It allows these transients to flow before the pulse of electric current has completed the circuit. For example, the diagram below (which is not entirely accurate) purports to show how a capacitor charges up. (Maxwell didn't know how fast electricity goes, so he ignored the spread of electricity along the capacitor plates, which reflects back off the far end and adds to further incoming energy.)

This illustration (due to Ivor Catt, Wireless World December 1978) is false because Catt draws the steps as being vertical increments. This is because he falsely assumes zero rise-time at the front of the long pulse energy current flowing into the capacitor (which is an physics error that goes right back to Heaviside).


When electric current (or a long flat-topped logic pulse), enters a capacitor plate, Maxwell thought it continued straight on to the other plate, without any change of direction, via aethereal displacement current. Hence in Maxwell's displacement current of the vacuum, i = e.dE/dt = dD/dt, the direction of both i and dD/dt is perpendicular to the plane of the plates, so it is from one plate to the other.

But since Maxwell got the direction wrong (the current spreads along the plates), and since x-rays/radioactivity showed wires to be like an aether (nuclear atoms with enormous spacesbetween electrons, not by any means a 'solid metal), the 'displacement current' is actually a displacement of real charge in the conductor itself. Hence in the equation i = dD/dt, the direction of i and dD/dt is parallel to the conductor, and i is real current not aethereal current.

The 90 degree direction change of current is vital, see http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm:

'This "capacitor is a transmission line" conclusion directly contradicts Maxwell, Article 610:

"One of the chief peculiarities of this treatise is the doctrine which asserts, that the true electric current, I, that on whichthe electromagnetic phenomena depend, is not the same thing as i, thecurrent of conduction, but...

I = i + dD/dt (Equation of True Currents)."

'This quotation pins down the gross falsehood in today's physical science, based on (Maxwell's) electromagnetic theory; the correct equation due to Catt, Davidson, and Walton is: 'I = i = dD/dt

'In this equation, there is an "=" sign whereas in Maxwell's equation there is a "+" sign. This says it all. In other words, Maxwell treats wire electricity (i) as being different to the current flow in the vacuum dielectric of a charging or discharging capacitor (dD/dt), whereas Catt. Davidson, and Walton have proven that there is no distinction for pulses ofelectromagnetic energy in wires. Hence, Maxwell is mathematically wrong.' {However, Ivor Catt refuses to scientifically comment on this clarification of his writings, or on the diagram above.}

In Catt's logic step diagram, dD/dt is either zero or infinity, regardless of whether you are confused over the direction of the voltage variation (along the conductor or orthagonal to it). When you correct this error, you find the mechanism for what is happening inside the TEM wave, electricity. Ivor falsely says that his diagram is represents a question/anomaly with the mainstream theory. What completes the circuit is displacement current i = e.dE/dt = dD/dt, where e is permittivity. Catt draws the diagram with a Heaviside step, so dD/dt = 0 both ahead of and behind the step (zero or steady v volts), and dD/dt = v/0 = infinity at the vertical rise of the step. When you correct the 'little error' of getting only i = 0 and i = infinity, the Catt anomaly is explained, and you discover how electricity really works.

The problem that people may have is the direction of electric field E. The potential involts is varying from 0 to v over a distance x along the plate. Once a current has been induced on the other plate, there is a charge there and so there is then a field gradient between the plates (with E pointing from one plate towards the other, the E vector being perpendicular to the plane of the capactor plates or transmission line wires). The E field I'm talking about is that parallel to the plates, because the current must turn 90 degrees and must spread along the plate after entering it (not proceed as Maxwell thought straight in the direction of one plate to the other).

I've pointed out that a misunderstanding of Maxwell's 'displacement current' has led to the false (non-quantum) light wave emission picture which conflicts with Bohr's atomic transition. Briefly, Maxwell's equations predict that an atomic electron should continuously emit energy, not discrete energy levels or quanta. Maxwell used two of his major equations to describe light: Faraday's law of induction and Maxwell's 'displacement current' fiddle. An atom is really a capacitor, and quantum transitions correspond to the change in capacitance (with fixed charge of e-) when the electron jumps.

The second equation is known since 1979 to be physically wrong for a capacitor although Catt's arm-waving dismissal of the whole of modern physics as a result is even further in error: Catt should have focussed on the mathematical and interpretative consequences of his result, the stepwise (discrete) 'charging curve.'

Consider the 2 conductor transmission lines as 2 parallel radio aerials. If you feed one with a signal (of any type) and leave the other passive, the first transmits energy to the passive one which receives energy only as a result of di/dt in the first one. This is indistinguishable from Maxwell's 'displacement current' equation. Maxwell says vacuum 'displacement current' i = e.dE/dt = e.dv/(x.dt) where e is permittivity and x is the width over which the step rises (definition: x = ct, where t is the rise-time). We see that if x = 0, then i = infinity. This disproves the idea of a truly abrupt step. Moreover, the current rises over the rise-time from 0 to its peak, and since radio emission occurs in proportion to di/dt, it becomes more intense as the step rise-time is made smaller.

Now here is the proof. Taking the 2 parellel aerials or transmission line conductors. Feed one with any signal, and feed the other with the inversion of that signal. While the signal strength rises, electrons accelerate and radio emission occurs in a perpendicular direction.

I've done this experiment and proved it experimentally. During the rise-time, each conductor transmits a radio signal that is the exact opposite of that emitted from the other conductor. At a long distance (several times the distance of the gap between the two conductors) there is 'no' observable radio transmission at all, because each radio emission cancels out that of the other: 'perfect interference'. (The same concept is often used as white noise to suppress sounds, but that is less effective.)

A time-varying current results in radio emission. Neither Catt nor anyone else has measured the fields in the space between two conductors as a TEM wave passes: they have only measured induced currents in other conductors. Radio emission is occurring at the front of a logic step! Catt got the 'Catt anomaly' wrong by relying on a book published in 1893 which ignored the step effects at the front of the TEM wave. Asserting ignorance is wrong. At the front of a logic step, current rises (in accepted picture) and this results in radio emission. Since each conductor is oppositely charged and carries an opposite current, the radio emission from each conductor (acting as aerials) is exactly out of phase with the other and so completely cancels that from the other as seen at a large distance. So there is no energy radiated to large distances! The only radio emission of energy occurs from each conductor to the other.

Maxwell wrote 'displacement current' in terms of electric field strength. However, as the voltage rises at front of the logic step, current rises. Maxwell should have written the extra current (displacement current in vacuum) equation in terms of the ordinary (conductor based) current, which means 'displacement current' is radio. Maxwell: displacement current i = e.dE/dt = e(v/ct^2), where e is permittivity and v is uniform voltage rise over time t. What I'm saying is that the mutual radio emission causes the front of the logic step (the rising part) to propagate. Each conductor induces current in the other! It is fact that the inverse-square law doesn't apply: there is no net radio transmission beyond the system because of perfect interference, as the current rise in each conductor is the exact opposite of that in the other one so the radio transmissions from each conductor exactly cancels the other outside the transmission line!

The point is that the entire radio energy emitted by each conductor during the step is transmitted to, and received by, the other conductor. This is the process by which the TEM wave is allowed to propagate. Catt, ironically, gives the conventional textbook slab of drivel on this point! See http://www.ivorcatt.com/6_2.htm (that web version misses out the formulae, but they are widely known) where Catt calculates the inductance of a single wire and finds: "The self inductance of a long straight conductor is infinite. This is a recurrence of Kirchhoff's First Law, that electric current cannot be sent from A to B. It can only be sent from A to B and back to A." I think it is unhelpful for Catt, having defined E and B in fixed ratio for a TEM wave (E=cB), then goes along with the unfruitful textbook treatment of inductance which considers inductance as a B field effect! The magnetic field loops around each conductor instead of going from one conductor to the other line 'displacement current' or in fact radio energy. This is probably where the conventional theory went wrong! It is clear that the entire energy needed to propagate the TEM wave is transmitted as radio from one conductor to the other during the step. No loss occurs because the step in each is inverted with respect to the other in a TEM wave.

This is absolutely vital for correcting the classical errors in Maxwell's equations and their application, to allow a less crass (discrete/continuous jumble) understanding of what a light photon is, so that gauge bosons understood sufficiently to allow full quantum field theory unification of fundamental forces.

The Poynting-Heaviside vector is false if interpreted as saying that there is no propagation in the E and B vector directions. Forces act in the E and B field directions, and that means that energy is conveyed perpendicularly to the propagation vector c. The reality is that that the Poynting-Heaviside vector (Poynting and Heaviside discovered it independently) is holding back science. Quantum field theory of electrodynamics, which is verified for accurate predictions of (1) Lamb shift, (2) magnetic moment increase of electron due to vacuum and (3) magnetic moment increase of muon due to vacuum, says Coulomb's law is caused by the exchange of gauge bosons, which are photons. Coulomb's law is the force version of Gauss' electric field law, and so we know that photons are moving all the time along electric field lines. This is the cause of the force as specified by the quantum field theory (Feynman diagrams). So there is strong evidence the Poynting vector ignores the dynamics. (Quantum field theory is moving towards an spacetime fabric picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model.

See arXiv: hep-th/0510040 [26] p85: the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea/aether as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'.

There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash [27] as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea/aether.)

'... it is thus perhaps best to view spin foam models ... as a novel way of defining a (regularised) path integral in quantum gravity. Even without a clear-cut link to the canonical spin network quantisation programme, it is conceivable that spin foam models can be constructed which possess a proper semi-classical limit in which the relation to classical gravitational physics becomes clear. For this reason, it has even been suggested that spin foam models may provide a possible ‘way out’ if the difficulties with the conventional Hamiltonian approach should really prove insurmountable.' - Page 14 of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601129

The reason for the technical problems of loop quantum gravity, LQG, like an infinite number of potential solutions is simply a lack of connection to reality. This is the same problem which stops string theory from succeeding after 20 years of intense funding, which LQG has not had!I don't think the aim of science is just to link GR and QFT by some kind of mathematical fiddle of the Feynman path integral, but the broader picture of understanding why gravity is so much weaker, and being able to predict it. The conventional aim of producing a theory that "predicts gravity" by merely being consistent with unobserved hypothetical spin 2 graviton conjectures is no good. Maxwell fiddled his theory to fit the facts, but at least his equations allow me to calculate electromagnetic phenomena.

With both string theory and LQG you have a mathematically far more complex and incomplete version of something like Maxwell's aether electromagnetism, but the equations are useless for practical things. You can't calculate Standard Model parameters with them, or anything. So you are left with the physical picture - 10/11 dimensional strings and 10^500 vacuua. This is why I think LQG spin foam vacuum is more realistic - it is tied to reality.

It's a pity people are so constrained to only seeing abstract mathematical approaches and technical details of speculative conjectures. Top physicists should be resolving the reasons why Maxwell's equations wrongly predict continuous and not discrete electromagnetic waves for atomic phenomena. Once this is sorted, then you will a correct model for one observable unified force (electromagnetism) which will be a foundation for getting a grasp of quantum gravity. At present, anomalies between real observed physics phenomena and the mathematical models are swept under the carpet. And some people have the cheek to speculate on SUSY and other unobservables.

"We could go on and on and on. String theory reproduces special relativity; LQG does not. String theory is consistent with the existence of other forces and fields (which moreover seem necessary not only according to the experiments but also because of internal consistency of quantum gravity) and it in fact predicts them; LQG does not." - STRING THEORIST Dr Lubos Motl, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-is-lqg-expert.html

Special relativity not exactly a defence of string theory as general relativity is quite different, and anyway special relativity conflicts with quantum field theory: Quantum field theory is moving towards an ether picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model. See arXiv, hep-th/0510040 p85, the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea as: 'it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'.

There is evidence that 'string theory' is hogwash as it makes no testable predictions, but its major rival is the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity, which again is a Dirac sea. General relativity is entirely different to special/restricted relativity:EINSTEIN REPUDIATED SPECIAL RELATIVITY AS FOLLOWS:

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

You can get the equations of "special relativity" from electrodynamics as Lorentz and others did before Einstein. Yes Einstein was the biggest genius of all time, but he ADMITTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY DOESN'T APPLY TO A REAL WORLD WHERE THERE ARE ACCELERATIONS (SEE QUOTATION ABOVE). Which is why general relativity is different. At best, the EQUATIONS of special relativity are the same as those of the correct theory; at worse they are completely wrong and lead to paradoxes by not including acceleration effects. You cannot rely on the framework of special framework since all real motion involves acceleration and thus force.

It is really to be expected that the same people who admire Einstein's early errors as if they were better than his major work in general relativity, are the people who also work on string theory. It is not coincidence. You are just brainwashed bigots. You can't see that physics tied to facts, such as FitzGerald and Lorentz's approach to the equations of "special relativity" a decade before Einstein are MORE BEAUTIFUL PHYSICALLY, because they are connected to reality.

Instead, Lubos and other cranks ignore the reality of general relativity and the spin foam vacuum which seems to connect the experimental facts of gravity with those of quantum field theory, and you instead try to connect 10/11 dimensional speculation with spin-2 gauge boson (graviton) speculation, using unobservable string speculation.

String 'theorists' (or should we be honest and say cranksters?) think speculation is beautiful because the level of maths, or what they call maths, is so technically involved it will not be understood or checked by outsiders. The whole approach of 'string theory' big mouthed crackpots is insulting, speculative, trivial, unconnected to any reality, and frankly insane.

String theorist Dr Lubos Motl, who knows about propaganda, has now usefully given the following enlightening viewpoint:

“An important part of all totalitarian systems is an efficient propaganda machine. … to protect the ‘official opinion’ as the only opinion that one is effectively allowed to have.” - STRING THEORIST Dr Lubos Motl, http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/power-of-propaganda.html

Another string theorists (mentioned in the previous post and its comments): Dr Urs Schreiber

Urs Says: January 19th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I think that when Gen Rel was published in 1915 there WERE already detectors able to see the effects.
Sure. But in 1815 there were not.
Today, entire high energy physics is suffering from the lack of good detectors. Theory is far ahead of experiment, unfortunately.

anonymous Says: January 19th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
“Theory is far ahead of experiment, unfortunately.”
Indeed! I thought it was the other way round, with theory being unable to catch up with experiments. Perhaps I’ve missed a paper on arXiv.org that predicted the masses of quarks, coupling constants, and other Standard Model parameters. How careless of me.

STRING "THEORISTS" LIKE DR SUSSKIND ARE "SMUG": see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=329

STRING "THEORISTS" USE PROPAGANDA TO ATTACK LQG: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=330

MORE ABOUT LOOP QUANTUM GRAVITY (LQG): http://lqg.blogspot.com/

UPDATE (comments from Wikipedia discussion):

Getting back to the Catt Anomaly issue: there is no electric current where the voltage does not vary with distance along a conductor. So there is no electric current in the logic step behind the front (where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts). This is because you have to have a variation in electric field strength to get electrons to accelerate.

In the Catt anomaly diagrams, Catt shows a current flowing in the conductors where the potential along the conductor is constant 10 volts. No electric current will actually flow under this condition, because you have to have the electric field varying with distance along a conductor to cause electron drift. The electrons accelerated briefly at the front will presumably soon slow down behind the front due to resistance, so "energy current" not "electric current" is possible where the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor) Catt of course fiddles it completely by drawing displacement current as flowing where the electric field is both constant with time and constant with respect to distance along the transmission line. The Catt Anomaly is an total, complete, and utter hoax from start to finish.

This justifies the idea that the Catt Anomaly has (1) disproved the competence of conventionally trained physicists who didn't spot the mistakes (names listed in the Catt Anomaly book), and (2) proves that Theory C does hold behind the rise (front) of the logic step, in addition to Theory C applying in a steady charged capacitor, of course.

Of course you could preserve electric current in the part of the logic step where the voltage is a constant 10 volts by a mutual exchange of magnetic field energy from motion of charge in the other conductor.

So at the front of the logic step, the varying electric field due to the finite rise portion from 0 to 10 volts accelerates electrons. Once the slow-moving electrons are within the constant 10 volts part of the electric field, the electric field is unable to continue to exert a force to overcome resistance. But the magnetic field from the charge in the opposite conductor then causes the current.

"Displacement current" if it exists equals permittivity times dv/(dt.dx).
As I've said, Maxwell confused this for "radio" (electromagnetic radiation, I'm not talking of sine waves) where the transverse emission of radiation (radiated power) is directly proportional to the acceleration of the charge, i.e., to the rate of change of the current in the conductor (not displacement current).

SUMMARY: (1) Maxwell: circuit is completed by something called "displacement current" which is not radiation as such but flows when voltage varies with time and distance.

(2) TRUTH: circuit is completed by radiation which flows as the ENERGY current in the conductor varies, accelerating charges at the front of the logic step. [4] Nigel 172.213.66.114 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

... There is no electric current in the portion of the logic step where the voltage is constant with distance. You need to have a voltage gradient with distance to keep the electrons drifting. Only ''energy current'', not electric current, is possible if the voltage is constant with distance along a conductor. There is current at the front where the voltage varies from 0 to 10 volts. See the Catt Anomaly diagram. The error in the Catt Anomaly diagram is that displacement current flows from one conductor to the other in all places, allowing electric current behind the front. Theory C holds true behind the front of a logic step, as well as in the steady, charged capacitor. Unless, that is, the magnetic field from the opposite conductor causes the current in the conductor of interest, which is of course what happens. Each conductor causes the current in the other one. At the front it is due to electromagnetic radiation emission due to charge accelerated by the electric voltage varying from 0 to 10 volts, and where the voltage is steady at 10 volts, the electric current is caused by the magnetic field from the other conductor. In each case the electromagnetic radiation emission and the magnetic field from each conductor causes the current in the other conductor, a mutual induction situation. At a large distance from the transmission line, no electromagnetic radiation or magnetic field exists, because the contribution from each conductor cancels that from the other conductor exactly in perfect interference. So there is no energy lost from the system by radiation, 100% is exchanged between the two conductors, causing the currents in each of them. Nigel [[User:172.213.66.114172.213.66.114]] 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Correcting the Hubble expansion parameter for spacetime: at present recession speeds are divided into observed distances, H = v/R. This ignores the variation with time! The distance R is increasing all the time, so is not time-independent. To get a proper Hubble ‘constant’ therefore you need to replace distance with time t = R/c. This gives recession constant as v/t which equals v/t = v/(R/c) = vc/R = cH. So the correct spacetime formulation of the cosmological recession is v/t = cH = 6 x 10^- 10 ms^-2. Outward acceleration! This means that the mass of the universe has a net outward force of F=ma = 7 x 10^43 N. (Assuming that F=ma is not bogus!) Newton’s 3rd law says there is an implosion inward of the same force, 7 x 10 ^43 N. (Assuming that Newton’s 3rd law is not bogus!) This predicts gravity as the shielding of this inward force of gauge boson radiation to within existing data! (Assuming that the inward force is carried by the gauge bosons which cause gravity.)

Causal approach to loop quantum gravity (spin foam vacuum): volume contains matter and spacetime fabric, which behaves as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity. As particles move in the spacetime fabric, it has to flow out of the way somewhere. It goes into the void behind the moving particle. Hence, the spacetime fabric filling a similar volume goes in the opposite direction to moving matter, filling in the void behind. Two analogies: (1) 'holes' in semoconductor electronics go the other way to electrons, and (2) a 70 litre person walking south along a corridor is matched by 70 litres of air moving north. At the end, the person is at the other end to the end he was in when he started, and 70 litres of air has moved up to fill in the space he vacated. Thus, simple logic and facts give us a quantitative and predictive calculating tool: an equal volume of the fluid goes in the opposite direction with the same motion, which allows the inward vacuum spacetime fabric pressure from the big bang to be calculated. This allows gravity to be estimated the same way, with the same result as the other method. Actually, boson radiations spend part of their existence as matter-antimatter pairs. So the two calculations do not duplicate each other. If the fraction due to radiation (boson) pressure is f, that due to perfect fluid pressure is 1-f. The total remains the same: (f) + (1 - f)= 1.




Error causing dark energy problems, etc., in cosmology:

Existing cosmology: Hubble constant(H) = recession velocity (v) /observed apparent distance (R) = parameter measured in units of 1/time (reciprocal seconds, etc.).

Problem: spacetime says observed distance R is observed at time past t = R/c, where c is velocity of light. Therefore we are seeing back in time with increasing distance. Fact! So stars are not at the distances they were when observed, but have receded further in the time the light was travelling towards us from the stars. We cannot claim the recession is independent of time. Fact! In spacetime, we must write the recession as time-dependent:

Solution: the recession is: recession velocity (v) / time past (t) = v/t. Since t = R/c, and H is already defined as H = v/R, the correct recession is:

v/t = v/(R/c) = HR/(R/c) = Hc ~ 6 x 10^-10 m/s^2 (acceleration!).

'Objections' to the facts above:

1. Who cares? Solution: it's consequences include predicting gravity right, and many other things: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

2. The galaxies are not really accelerating, it's just an effect caused by spacetime (finite speed of light, gravity, etc.) as seen by the observer. If we could somehow see and feel gauge boson exchange gravity from the universe instantly without delay times, this problem would disappear. Solution: who cares? What you see is what you get. Sure, if you could see the universe without the delay times of light travelling from times in the past, it would look different. But you can't.

3.
From: "Igor Khavkine" <ikhavki@uwo.ca>
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 4:53 AM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post

'As to the post in question. I have seen nothing to change my original opinion. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to point out its flaws in detail. Hence I could only reply with a rejection.' - Sincerely, Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator.

Solution: (see previous post discussion of this bumptious, insulting vague crackpot). You can't get more out of these people than self-promotion. Khavkine says he sees flaws, but does not have time to point them out in 'more detail'. Those he ignorantly claimed to point out last time (see previous post) were Newton's laws and spacetime, which apply here! Personal abuse is just nonsense, since neither Ivor Catt not Igor know me personally. Their prejudices are bad.

Ivor Catt, a computer designer who has lifesaving inventions but prefers to promote his work by the 'discovery' that the Hubble recession is a hoax, claims - like Igor Khavkine - that my work is useless, and simply refuses to see the predictions it makes or comment scientifically, objectively. Instead, Ivor Catt makes personal comments, or political type sneers about spacetime. One favourite of Catt's is claiming that the sign of the Hubble expansion is 'wrong' because 'things are gaining distance but losing time'. This is political: it depends on whether you see distance or time as the more valuable. Spacetime says that any distance can be stated in terms of time t = R/c.

Big mouthed 'critics' can't do anything more than sneer. They have no facts, no scientific objection, just psychological crackpotism and personal belief in orthodox speculation, the personal pet theories of people like Dr Edward Witten and a few others. I've known this type of thing for a decade. Dr John Gribbin did not correct errors in new editions of his books when requested. Later he sent out an email to a long list of people suggesting that I might be sued for trying to get the life-costing errors in science corrected. See also my article here. As the quote at the beginning of my website says, the harder you try to better the world, the more objection from those who make money (selling books or whatever) about the old system they received their PhD in:

'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.' - George Bernard Shaw.


Nigel Says: January 14th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

Some kind of loop quantum gravity is going to be the right theory, since it is a spin foam vacuum. People at present are obsessed with the particles that string theory deals with, to the exclusion of the force mediating vacuum. Once prejudices are overcome, proper funding of LQG should produce results.

Lee Smolin Says: January 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm

... Thanks also to Nigel for those supporting comments. Of course more support will lead to more results, but I would stress that I don’t care nearly as much that LQG gets more support as that young people are rewarded for taking the risk to develop new ideas and proposals. To go from a situation where a young person’s career was tied to string theory to one in which it was tied to LQG would not be good enough. Instead, what is needed overall is that support for young scientists is not tied to their loyalty to particular research programs set out by we older people decades ago, but rather is on the basis only of the quality of their own ideas and work as well as their intellectual independence. If young people were in a situation where they knew they were to be supported based on their ability to invent and develop new ideas, and were discounted for working on older ideas, then they would themselves choose the most promising ideas and directions. I suspect that science has slowed down these last three decades partly as a result of a reduced level of intellectual and creative independence avaialble to young people.

Thanks,
Lee

The fact that Dr Lee Smolin says this tells you that this is not a personal problem. There is a problem of authority being abused in science to support personal pet theories, like string theory and other untestable speculation.

UPDATE: Igor Khavkine above (and mentioned in previous post below) may or may not be the problem. A co-moderator with him on sci.physics.research is Urs Schreiber, a string theorist who emailed me once when he was a moderator at 'Physics Forums' a couple of years ago. My attempts to discuss the facts there were twarted by abuse from moderators under anonymous cover who claimed falsely that the divergence operator in mathematical physics is 'disproved' by a sum of line elements, then they cancelled my membership to prevent me responding! This is a similarly false approach as that taken by Igor Khavkine when he claims that spacetime and Newton's laws don't apply to the big bang, that he doesn't have the time to defend that false assertion, and that all further submissions on this topic will automatically be rejected. Dictators have plenty of fun being abusive to others. What a pity they can't pick on pseudoscience like string theory to ridicule. See Urs' defence of string theory here.

1. Feynman shows that forces arise from the exchange of gauge bosons (coming from distances at light speed, hence coming from times in the past).
2. The big bang mass has a speed, in the spacetime which we see, from 0 toward speed of light c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years (or distances of 0 to 15 billion light-years), giving outward force by Newton’s 2nd empirical law: F = ma = m.dv/dt = mc/(age of universe).
3. Newton’s 3rd law gives equal inward force, carried by gauge bosons, which shielded by mass, proves gravity and electromagnetism to within 1.65%: proof is at http://feynman137.tripod.com/

Nobody has ever proved that gravity is attractive, rather than a shielding of a pressure effect (fluid model for spacetime fabric in GR), because there is no official quantum gravity yet. If gravity is a push due to gauge bosons exchanged between masses, there is not going to be a slowing down of the expansion of the universe by gravity, so Friedmann's solutions are inapplicable.The treatment of the push gravity dynamics shows that the multiplying constant in the density is not the 3/8 factor derived by Friedmann but 3/(4e^3), which is 10.04 times lower, so both dark matter and dark energy (postulated to overcome gravitational deceleration at extreme distances) are falsified by the real physics.

The exchange of gauge bosons between all masses causes expansion of the universe, the big bang. This is implicit from the mechanism and the position of the Milky Way galaxy with respect to the cosmic background radiation. The +/- 3 mK cosine redshifts and blueshifts in the 2.7 K cosmic background radiation are well measured (ripples thousands of times smaller have been measured in the same data, interpreted as the result of density variations which were the seeds of galaxy formation when the cosmic background was emitted before redshift, as 3000 K blackbody radiation some 300,000 years after time zero). The +/- 0.1% radiation in the cosmic background which is a cosine of angle varies as the earth rotates, and shows the Milky Way has an absolute motion of about 400 km/s, directed towards Andromeda. (See previous post for how general relativity differs from restricted relativity by including accelerations which are absolute, because they create measurable forces which don't obey the restricted relativity law.)

In the 15,000,000,000 years since time zero, our velocity will have varied substantially from 400 km/s. At present it is at least partly due to gravitational attraction toward Andromeda. But it is an order-of-magnitude estimate. The distance we are probably located from the initial singularity of the big bang is 400,000 m/s x 15,000,000,000 years x 32,000,000 s/year = 1.9 x 10^23 m, which is 0.13% of the radius of the universe. So we see gauge bosons pushing inward at us equally from all directions, but a galaxy near the radius of the universe is being pushed outward from gauge bosons from mass with the universe, but is experiencing a weaker inward push from the edge of the universe (material moving outward at nearly the speed of light, at vast distances, will not radiate much inward pressure, due to the immense redshift).

Why the mainstream (string theorists and their rivals) are not interested...

anon Says:

Dear Ark, the only things I can reply to are those I’ve some experience of. In mathematics, alternative theories are welcome if they are useful. In physics, alternatives are fought with rigor. One insidious method of suppressing alternatives is to say that the authors must be ignorant of the details and beauty of the mainstream model, while another is to dismiss the alternative as “speculative” (when in fact it is the maintream model that is overly speculative or even untestable, resulting in the newer model which is not so speculative and is more testable). Outsiders would imagine that such hypocrisy is easily exposed, but it isn’t, because the media seeks authority on scientific matters, which means only listening to the mainstream. So the farce just goes on.

Ignorance of spacetime and Newton's laws from Ivor Catt:

Igor,

I've tested the applicability, and it works: http://feynman137.tripod.com/.

Are you saying you are sure that Newton's laws don't apply?

Thank you for replying.

Best wishes
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com>
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: Gauge bosons in big bang universe
On 1/13/06, Nigel Cook <nigelbryancook@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Igor,
> Spacetime and Newton's laws are well accepted very basic physics.

True. However, like all physical laws, they have limits to their applicability. From your message, I'm not convinced that you are aware of these limits. Hence any application even of these basic laws in your messages is highly suspect. - Igor

{This abusive and fanatically personal tone ("you" and "highly suspect") is not scientifically skeptical, but is arm-wavingly vague and abusive, it is personally-sneering "you" with mindless, condescending rubbish to ignore the science. Feynman suggests how such a person should respond, namely respond to what is known, and respond by seeking to see if the facts fit objectively. Unfortunately, Igor/Ivor Catt has little to gain by being a genuine scientist.}

> However thanks for singling these out as areas you have problems in.

If you intend to remove every part of your message that can be singledout as problematic, in the end you'll end up with an empty post.Unfortunately, you'll have to get someone else to point out the restof the problems. - Sincerely,Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator

{Notice that string theory which is entirely problematic is not suppressed, although false "problems" namely that spacetime and Newton's laws DO APPLY are invented to suppress this!

Rewriting the post to point out the facts even to a child does not help, they then say that there it is too simple! If you use a lot of maths, they say they don't have the time to read it or they falsely claim that the inclusion of maths makes it 'speculative'. If you don't, they say it isn't science. You can't win with crackpots like string theorists and other bigots who have untestable 'pet theories' that are not based on observed facts that can be checked...

From: "Nigel Cook"
To: <physics-research@ncar.ucar.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Reformulated post

According to spacetime, distance is equivalent to time multiplied by the velocity of light. Therefore the Hubble recession of galaxies with speeds increasing with distances is equivalent to a recession speed increasing with time past. This is a fact. This parameter has units of acceleration, unlike the Hubble constant. This acceleration is a ~ c/t ~ 10^-10 m/s^2, where t is age of universe. Sofar no speculation, because spacetime and acceleration are well accepted concepts.To test this concept, take Newton's well established, non-speculative, second law, F=ma. This gives outward force of the big bang F ~ 10^43Newtons. Newton's third law, equally well accepted, tells us that there is equal inward force! Factual calculations show that this correctly predicts the gauge boson forcecausing gravity and the contraction effect in general relativity: My CERN preprint EXT-2004-007 expanded at http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/ andhttp://feynman137.tripod.com/. I'd like to get some expert assessment of this model, please. Thank you for any help!

Dear Igor,

could you not send silly insulting and personal emails from your own email address if you don't want a reply to that address. I thought this was common sense, like spacetime and Newton's laws being applicable to situations until proved otherwise. However, you seem to unaware of it. Other people at sci.physics.research may not think exactly the same thing.

Sincerely,
Nigel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Cook"
To: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post

I've answered your concerns about Newton's laws and spacetime. If you don't know where they apply, you should not block discussion.

Sincerely, Nigel Cook

----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Khavkine" <igor.kh@gmail.com
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Reformulated post
I'm rejecting this post for the same reason as the previous ones. It is highly likely that future posts in the same vein will also be rejected. Also, unless there is a complelling reason not to, please submit articles by posting them to the newsgroupl Sincerely,Igor Khavkine, sci.physics.research co-moderator


anon Says: January 14th, 2006 at 5:11 am

Dear Ark, yes in the end useful bits and pieces will have to be put together. The mainstream will first resent any interference from “outsiders” who try to change their foundations, then eventually the mainstream will make a big deal out of how “kind and generous and open-minded” they are to eventually allow publication or discussion of a radical suggestion. The farce is the double standards; they publish worthless speculation, but are scared numb (or become “angry”) about “radical” ideas which are less speculative than the string theory ideas they already have!

anon Says: January 9th, 2006 at 7:02 am
Physics already is managed like a company. It is big business: compare the costs of particle accelerators to other business costs.
Outsiders passionate about science are written off automatically as amateurs. The professionals are those who make money out of it.

John Baez's derivation of Newton's law from Einstein's, without tensors!

I like the approach at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node6a.html where Baez and Bunn obtain the Newtonian result using simple maths. It is educationally profound, since Einstein started off by putting the Newtonian result into tensor calculus and the applying the contraction to make the maths consistent (conservation of mass-energy in a gravitational field). It is the contraction term which leads to the different predictions of general relativity from Newtonian gravitation, but the contraction is only significant at high speeds and/or in strong gravitational fields. Baez considers the volume contraction simply here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html.

Understanding electroweak symmetry breaking

There are four vector bosons of electroweak force and how various models of the Higgs vacuum simply shield three of them at low energies but can't attenuate them if they have high energy. I like the Higgs boson idea as the cause of mass, because lepton and hadron masses are close to integers (see http://feynman137.tripod.com/).

QFT at present has the electric charge of the particle core shielded partly by the polarised fermions and other charges of the vacuum. For example, high energy electron collisions have experimentally shown increased Coulomb force, due to partially breaking through the vacuum polarisation veil.

One way to see unification is therefore as a complete breaking down of the polarised vacuum around the particle core. The 1/137 coupling constant is therefore the shielding factor. The reason the strong nuclear force is much stronger than electromagnetism, is that the radius of the vacuum veil is about the size of a nucleon. Within that distance, there is little shielding so the force is 137 times stronger, while outside the veil it is just Coulomb's law.

It should be possible to calculate the vacuum particle density as a function of distance from the core, using semi-classical models of polarised fluids. Of course nobody will want to do it as it is unfashionable. However with more abstract ideas (string theory) getting nowhere, perhaps simplicity is best.

I've today started another blog about loop quantum gravity at http://lqg.blogspot.com/, the alternative to strong theory. Loop quantum gravity is advocated by Lee Smolin and others, and is a non-perturbative quantum field theory explanation in terms of a spin foam vacuum (a modern 'a----r', for those who can fill in the gaps with the letters e, t, h, and e). According to quantum field theory, the virtual particles in the vacuum spend part of their time as spinning fermions and such like, and part of their time as bosons. (Bosons convert into pairs of oppositely charged fermions, which annihilate a brief time later, back into bosons.) The fabric of spacetime is very rich. Unfortunately nobody wants to know. Which is why 10/11 dimensional string theory has the upper hand.

By the way, I've sent Lee Smolin several messages over the years, and received only one reply. He ignored all the scientific messages, and replied to one on a completely different topic to say he wasn't interested in that (it concerned some abuses of science from a physics journalist). Oh well, at least he wasn't downright rude. Danny Ross Lunsford, who has discredited the Kaluza-Klein reducible 5-dimensional unification of general relativity and electromagnetism by establishing a new non-reducible 6-dimensional unification which is compatible with reality (at least, Lunsford's scheme gets rid of the cosmological constant and suggests gravity is a residual of the QED force rather than a separate QFT), is rude sometimes, but thankfully usually about string theorists.

John Baez on the Vacuum

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html talks about the speeding up of the universe.

The error here is that quantum field theory shows forces result from the exchange of gauge bosons. Gravity is a push effect as demonstrated A here.

Cosmologists have very few concrete data but those data are good (Hubble red-shifts of galaxy clusters and supernovas, cosmic background radiation, and abundances of the elements observed from line spectra in the universe).

Cosmologists tend to always assert speculative interpretations, for example see http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/19/the-universe-is-the-poor-mans-particle-accelerator/
The deduction by Sean Carroll there that general relativity and the gravitational constant G had the same value within 3 minutes of the big bang is easily overturned.

Fusion of light elements is the addition of protons and neutrons by the attractive strong nuclear force, which is short ranged. For this to occur, protons must overcome the Coulomb repulsion force, which is an inverse square law like gravity, which is responsible for the compression causing fusion. Therefore, if gravity constant G varies and electromagnetism (e.g. Coulomb's law) varies the same way, you don't get a change in fusion. So you can't say anything about the early universe proving that gravity was the same then.

There are numerous examples of sloppy arguments of this sort which are stubbornly asserted. The greatest are the dark matter and dark energy speculations. Some interpretations of galactic rotation (using simplistic models), can be used to imply that there may be some dark matter present to make the curves flatten out.

Friedmann's use of GR is completely fraudulent. He assumes that the expansion of the universe us slowed down by gravitational attraction. Nobody has ever proved that gravity is attractive, rather than a shielding of a pressure effect (fluid model for spacetime fabric in GR), because there is no official quantum gravity yet. If gravity is a push due to gauge bosons exchanged between masses, there is not going to be a slowing down of the expansion of the universe by gravity, so Friedmann's solutions are inapplicable.

The treatment of the push gravity dynamics shows that the multiplying constant in the density is not the 3/8 factor derived by Friedmann but 3/(4e^3), which is 10.04 times lower, so both dark matter and dark energy (postulated to overcome gravitational deceleration at extreme distances) are falsified by the real physics.

Luis Alvarez-Gaume and Miguel A. Vazquez-Mozo, Introductory Lectures on Quantum Field Theory, arXiv.org hep-th/0510040 v1, 5 October 2005.These guys have now made a major step in developing a classical model of QFT, see pp 70-71, 83-85:

p71: "... the electromagnetic coupling grows with energy... the polarisation of the vacuum [ether] ... electron-positron pairs around the location of the[core of the] charge. These virtual pairs behave as dipoles that, as in a dielectric medium, tend to screen this charge ... decreasing its value at long distances (i.e. lower energies)."

p85: "Here we have illustrated the creation of particles [pair-production asquantum tunnelling] by semiclassical sources in Quantum Field Theory... what one observer calls the vacuum will be full of particles for a different observer [hence special/restricted relativity is incomplete, giving way to the absolute motion implicit in accelerations and general motion, hence general relativity is an ether theory not a non-ether theory]."

It is curious to see restricted/special relativity being abandoned on page 85 with the technically obscure words: "The breaking of such invariance, as happened in the case of coupling to a time-varying source analyzed above, implies that it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers."

So special relativity is ditched because of quantum field theory! Didn't Dirac do this in his paper sating quantum field theory implies an ether, published in Nature in 1951? Or did he make the error of talking clearly?‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v.168, 1951, p.906. See also Dirac’s paper in Proc. Roy. Soc. v.A209, 1951, p.291.

‘Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether [physical continuum] is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University lecture on ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘In many interesting situations… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for - the delay of one of the light waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus…. The great stumbling-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ - Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), MA, MSc, FRS, Space Time and Gravitation: General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

anon Says:
Sean Carroll now presents a graph of evidence that dark energy varies with time: http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/11/evolving-dark-energy/
I love this expert cosmology. The fact that they keep modifying the theory to fit the new observations really shows how expert these guys are. Thanks Peter, for your patience with them!

From: "Brian Josephson"
To: "Nigel Cook"
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: mathematics

... An old Cambridge story, concerning a person who found himself sitting next to the taciturn Prof. X (X being variously named as Dirac, Stokes ..) at dinner.

Person sitting next to X: "someone has bet me I won't get more than 2 words out of you tonight"

Prof. X: "You lose!"

=b=

* * * * * * * Prof. Brian D. Josephson :::::::: bdj10@cam.ac.uk
* Mind-Matter * Cavendish Lab., J J Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K.
* Unification * voice: +44(0)1223 337260 fax: +44(0)1223 337356
* Project * WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
* * * * * * *

Thanks to Professor Josephson for the joke above! {See footnote to this post for the context of Josephson's email.} The entire physics community is tactiturn and unamused at any innovation. It is nearly as funny as Dr Woit's rip-roaringly scientific response here.

‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ - Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

Geometry of Feynman gauge boson exchange (gravity force) mechanism.

See http://feynman137.tripod.com/ for two different proofs.

A shield, like the planet earth, is composed of very small, sub-atomic particles. The very small shielding area per particle means that there will be an insignificant chance of the fundamental particles within the earth ‘overlapping’ one another by being directly behind each other. The total shield area is therefore directly proportional to the total mass: the total shield area is equal to the area of shielding by 1 fundamental particle, multiplied by the total number of particles. (Newton showed that a spherically symmetrical arrangement of masses, say in the earth, by the inverse-square gravity law is similar to the gravity from the same mass located at the centre, because the mass within a shell depends on its area and the square of its radius.) The earth’s mass in the standard model is due to particles associated with up and down quarks: the Higgs field.

From the illustration above, the total outward force of the big bang,

(total outward force) = ma = (mass of universe).(Hubble
acceleration, a = dv/dt = Hc)

while the gravity force is the shielded inward reaction (by Newton’s 3^rd law the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction):

F = (total outward force).(cross-sectional area of shield
projected to radius R) / (total spherical area with radius R).

The cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R is equal to the area of the fundamental particle (p multiplied by the square of the radius of the black hole of similar mass), multiplied by the (R/r)² which is the inverse-square law for the geometry of the implosion. The total spherical area with radius R is simply four times p, multiplied by the square of R. Inserting simple Hubble law results c = RH and R/c = 1/H give us

F = (4/3)p r G²M²/(Hr)².

We then set this equal to F=Ma and solve, getting

G = (3/4)H²/(p r ).

When the effect of the higher density in the local universe at the great distance R is included, this becomes

G = (3/4)H²/(p r _(local) e³),

which is accurate to within 1.65% (see http://feynman137.tripod.com/) and identical to that obtained in the older analysis (this proof is at: http://feynman137.tripod.com/).

The density correction factor explained: For mass continuity of any expanding gas or explosion debris, dr/dt = -Ñ.(rv) = -3rH. Inserting the Hubble expansion rate v = Hr and solving yields, r = r_local e³ (early visible universe has higher density). The reason for multiplying the local measured density of the universe up by a factor of about 20 (the number e³ , the cube of the base of natural logarithms) is because it is the denser, more distant universe which contains most of the mass which is producing most of the inward pressure. Because we see further back in time with increasing distance, we see a more compressed age of the universe. Gravitational push comes to us at light speed, with the same velocity as the visible light that shows the stars. Therefore we have to take account of the higher density at earlier times. What counts is what we see, the spacetime in which distance is directly linked to time past, not the simplistic picture of a universe at constant density, because we can never see or experience gravity from such a thing due to the finite speed of light. The mass continuity equation dr/dt = -Ñ.(rv) is simple hydrodynamics based on Green’s theorem and allows the Hubble law (v = HR) to be inserted and solved. An earlier method of calculation for this the notes of CERN preprint EXT-2004-007, is to set up a formula for the density at any particular time past, so as to calculate red-shifted contributions to inward spacetime fabric pressure from a series of shells surrounding the observer. This is the same as the result r = r_local e³ .

The acceleration is

a = (variation in velocity)/(variation in time) = c / (1/H) = cH
= 6 x 10^-10 ms^-2.

outward force (F = ma) is very large. The 3^rd law of motion implies equal inward force like an implosion, which in LeSage gravity gives the right value for G, disproving the ‘critical density’ formula of general relativity by ½ e³ = 10 times. This disproves most speculative ‘dark matter’. Since gravity is the inward push caused by the graviton/Higgs field flowing around the moving fundamental particles to fill in the void left in their wake, there will only be a gravitational ‘pull’ (push) where there is a surrounding expansion. Where there is no surrounding expansion there is no gravitational retardation to slow matter down. This is in agreement with observations that there is no slowing down (a fictitious acceleration is usually postulated to explain the lack of slowing down of supernovae).

'... the source of the gravitational field [in general relativity] can be taken to be a perfect fluid... A fluid is a continuum that 'flows' ... A perfect fluid is defined asone in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.' - Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

Current teaching of general relativity, as causing a flat surface like a rubber sheet to curve into a manifold, is unhelpful to further progress in unifying quantum space with gravitation, since physical space fills volume, not surface area: 'The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion ... because the effect looked for - the delay of one of the light waves - is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus ... The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.' - Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1919), MA, MSc, FRS, Space Time and Gravitation: General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

Einstein repudiated the completeness of special relativity in 1916: 'The special theory of relativity ... does not extend to non-uniform motion. The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity. The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).' - Albert Einstein, 'The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity', Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

(Every physicist I spoke to at the Open University in 1996-7 conceded that the Earth's absolute motion in space is about 400 km/s toward Andromeda, as proved by the +/-0.003 Kelvin cosine variation in the 2.7 Kelvin microwave background radiation. This blueshift/redshift effect due to motion in the universe is well known, an article appeared in it in the Scientific American in around 1977 titled The New Aether Drift, and it is always removed from the cosmic microwave backgroundbefore the data is processed to find ripples, which are millions of times smaller in size than the relatively massive effect due to the earth's motion. Special relativity is not wrong mathematically, it is just replaced by general relativity which is broader.)

Feynman noted that the drag effect of the spacetime fabric only works on the dv/dt not on v. So it is not like air. He also notes that in general relativity, the earth's radius is squeezed 1.5 mm due to the spacetime distortion; gauge boson pressure in space squeezes it. It only resists accelerations. The 'drag' is thus inertia, and causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. The reason why it doesn't continuously slow things down is that equilibrium re-establishes as a result of the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. Penrose has a diagram depicting the contraction of electric field strength in the direction of motion around a moving charge. This makes it clear how the equilibrium is restored, allowing motion: the charge distorts in shape when moving, so that the pressure on it from each direction remains equal, preventing continuous drag.

The editor of Physical Review Letters, Dr Brown, emailed me in January 2003, stating that the cause of gravity is already known, so an alternative is unnecessary. The physics pre-print server, funded by U.S. government supposedly in the interests of genuine science arxiv.org, also deleted my preprint paper after hosting it for 2 minutes. Subsequent emails showed that they felt it more important to avoid publishing a hoax than to avoid not publishing a genuine advance. Because so much of what is taken to be 'acceptable' physics and published is today crazy speculation, the editors cannot distinguish rubbish from genuine advances, and to some extent they are prejudiced towards comradeship with those on string theory research payrolls. Therefore the scientific referee system works like an old time trade union, ignoring the hard work of outsiders (non-members) and helping comrades by publishing their trivia or speculations. The casualty of this corruption is the status of physics, with U.K. physics A-level take up dropping 4 % each year. String theory and ESP may make the occult end of the subject more appealing, but it does not help to recruit normal people into physics.

I wish Dr Peter Woit would start saying nice things about suppressed science, which would help discredit string theory. He knows a lot about the problem, but prefers to do things one step at a time. The next step is for the publication of the attack on string theory, Not Even Wrong, in London in April 2006. I hope he has positive material in the book to replace string theory!

Of course, the only way to get rid of string theory would be for Woit to investigate the facts on how to deal with gravity. Notice Dr t'Hooft/Plato also ignores the facts. It is curious Woit did not delete my anon comment quoting Feynman:

‘You can recognise truth by its beauty and simplicity. … The inexperienced, and crackpots, and people like that, make guesses that are simple, but you can immediately see that they are wrong, so that does not count. … We have to find a new view of the world that has to agree with everything that is known, but disagree in its predictions somewhere, otherwise it is not interesting. And in that disagreement it must agree with nature.’ (Character of Physical Law, 1965, p171.)

No reply yet from Woit to my email:

From: Nigel Cook
To: woit@math.columbia.edu
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 1:17 PM
Subject: Woit on Santa Claus
Dear Peter Woit,

Why don't you write a post for kids on Christmas Eve, explaining how Santa Claus uses string theory, parallel universes, and extra dimensions to deliver presents all over the world at the same time? You might finish it off by hinting that Witten looks as well as writes like Santa Claus, so perhaps he is really Santa.

Hope you find this a sensible and helpful suggestion.

Yours etc.,
Nigel Cook


'It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is - if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.' - Feynman, Character of Physical Law, 1965, p156.

The great problem was that Maxwell produced his equations, then Hertz claimed to have confirmed Maxwell's prediction. When Planck and Bohr later showed that Maxwell's equations were definitely faulty, it was too late to re-examine the theory as the physics has already been dumped (Maxwell had a false aetherial gear cog and idler wheel 'displacement current' mechanism). So Maxwell's equations were labelled classical physics instead of being corrected.

Theory: storks deliver babies to families! Prediction: houses with more storks nests on their roofs will have more children. Confirmation: in general, the bigger the house, the more likely you are to find more children living there. So Popper's insistence on evidence to subsequently test a theory can lead to errors being falsely "confirmed".

Popper's insistence that any theory must be potentially wrong (falsifiable) steers clear of the classical straightforward mathematical proofs by Archimedes. Archimedes lacked mechanisms for hydrodynamics like buoyancy, but at least he used a methodology anchored in empirical fact. Popper would be forced to dismiss Archimedes. (For my dynamical treatment of bouyancy, see: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/emails.htm

Popper's error is obvious: his definition of science ignores proved science while allowing false theories to dominate, which become so protected by ignorant orthodoxy that nobody can ever hope to debunk them. Epicycles would be protected under Popper's scheme, because it is impossible to actually disprove unnecessary maths.

The Maxwell equation for displacement current is wrong as it is not stepwise. When corrected, taking into account that an atom is a charged capacitor, you get quantum theory. The capacitor charges in steps equal to the time for energy travelling at light speed to transit a capacitor plate and reflect back - http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm

Unclassified Official admission that mutual inductance/EMC (electromagnetic compatibility) problems led to the disaster reported on updated page http://feynman137.tripod.com/ is at http://www.ams.mod.uk/ams/content/topics/pages/2551.htm:

'Examples of Problems caused by lack of attention to EMC/MI: Mutual Interference between the SATCOM and EW systems onboard HMS Sheffield resulted in the inability to detect an incoming exocet missile during the Falklands war resulting in the loss of the ship and the lives of 20 sailors.'

Compare this with the cover-up the prejudiced BBC reports at http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/4/newsid_2504000/2504155.stm:

'The ship caught fire when a French-made Exocet missile penetrated deep into HMS Sheffield's control room ... The Exocet missile is designed to skim the sea to avoid radar detection. It has its own radar that guides it to its intended target ... It was the first of four Royal Navy ships sunk during the Falklands War.'

These lying crackpots, or prejudiced loony 'BBC expert journalists' (translation: abusive, dismissive, enraged, patronising assertive ignoramuses), are thereby censoring off the radar the scientific, experimentally-proved FACT that Ivor Catt had way back in the 1960s sorted out the practical issue of 'mutual inductance' (cross-talk) in his paper published in IEEE Transactions on Electronic Computers, vol. EC-16, December 1967, Cross-talk (Noise) in Digital Systems, and subsequent papers. Any finding which proves suppression of Catt is costing lives must be covered up by the paranoid BBC, an example of a 'Science-Contradicting Unclear Megalomaniacs and Very Important Lazy Experts' (acronyms s.c.u.m. and v.i.l.e.).

Let's take a look at their methods.

First, ignore Catt since 1969.

Second, claim or strongly hint without naming sources or providing scientific evidence that anyone trying to save lives is a crackpot, egotist, paranoid, mad, etc.: "Depending on who you talk to in the generally conservative semiconductor industry, Catt is either a crank or a visionary. ..." - New Scientist, 12 June 1986, p35.

Third, when Catt's wafer-scale "chip" receives £16 million funding and works as the first wafer-scale technology in the world to succeed, change tune and deplore censorship: "Ivor Catt [is] an innovative thinker whose own immense ability in electronics has all too often been too far ahead of conventional ideas to be appreciated..." - Wafers herald new era in computing, New Scientist, 25 February 1989, p75.

Fourth, when Catt tries to apply the same technology to life-saving, http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm, censor him all over again, forgetting the lesson learned:

From: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk [mailto:Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk] Sent: Mon 30/08/2004 11:29 To: ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; Cook, Nigel B Cc: Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk Subject: RE: Catt and New Scientist

Dear Ivor and Nigel

If this is mediation, I'm a Dutch uncle. ... Hawking and Penrose are well regarded among their peers. I am eager to question their ideas but I cannot afford to ignore them. Any physicist working today would be daft to do so. ...

Yours Jeremy [Editor, New Scientist, who in an interview with The Hindu: ‘Scientists have a duty to tell the public what they are doing...’]

What is interesting is that most people imagine that the corruption, and prejudices in favour of status quo, which dominated medieval science have disappeared as if by magic due to enlightenment. Despite two world wars in the 20th century? Despite only 25 generations in the 500 years since Copernicus? How exactly is human nature supposed to have radically altered? By evolution? By avoiding the worship of false knowledge (see above example of Maxwell)? Really all that has happened is that science itself has become the new religion, complete with sacrosanct dogmas based on speculation and guesswork; in fact this is unfair to religion! I should say that most religion has at least some basis in morality, but Maxwell's equations carry all of the dogma with none of that. Radio effects were predicted by Michael Faraday in his 1846 paper, Thoughts on Ray Vibrations.

In his final (1873) edition of his book A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Article 110:

‘... we have made only one step in the theory of the action of the medium. We have supposed it to be in a state of stress, but we have not in any way accounted for this stress, or explained how it is maintained...’

In Article 111, he admits further confusion and ignorance:

‘I have not been able to make the next step, namely, to account by mechanical considerations for these stresses in the dielectric [spacetime fabric]... When induction is transmitted through a dielectric, there is in the first place a displacement of electricity in the direction of the induction...’

First, Maxwell admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about in the context of ‘displacement current’. Second, he talks more! Now Feynman has something about this in his lectures about light and EM, where he says idler wheels and gear cogs are replaced by equations. So let’s check out Maxwell's equations.

One source is A.F. Chalmers’ article, ‘Maxwell and the Displacement Current’ (Physics Education, vol. 10, 1975, pp. 45-9).

Chalmers states that Orwell’s novel 1984 helps to illustrate how the tale was fabricated:

‘… history was constantly rewritten in such a way that it invariably appeared consistent with the reigning ideology.’

Maxwell tried to fix his original calculation deliberately in order to obtain the anticipated value for the speed of light, proven by Part 3 of his paper, On Physical Lines of Force (January 1862), as Chalmers explains:

‘Maxwell’s derivation contains an error, due to a faulty application of elasticity theory. If this error is corrected, we find that Maxwell’s model in fact yields a velocity of propagation in the electromagnetic medium which is a factor of root 2 smaller than the velocity of light.’

It took three years for Maxwell to finally force-fit his ‘displacement current’ theory to take the form which allows it to give the already-known speed of light without the 41% error. Chalmers noted: ‘the change was not explicitly acknowledged by Maxwell.’ Weber, not Maxwell, was the first to notice that, by dimensional analysis (which Maxwell popularised), 1/(square root of product of magnetic force permeability and electric force permittivity) = light speed.

"... the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly..." - http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

As long as you have some asymmetry in the current, any conductor can be made to work, with the radio emission occurring in a direction perpendicular to the varying current. A spherical conductor with a central feed would not emit radio waves, because there would be no net current in any direction, but you can use a cylindrical conductor in coax as an aerial.

Catt's analysis applies to the case where the capacitor plates are close together in comparison to the length of the plates. For all capacitors used in electronics, this is true, since only a thin insulating film separates the foil plates, which are long and are generally rolled up. In this situation, any delay from one plate to the other is small.

But if you separate the plates by a large distance in the air, the capacitor appears more like a radio, with an appreciable delay time. The signal induced the second plate (receiver aerial) is also smaller than that in the first plate (transmitter aerial) because of the dispersion of energy radiated from the first plate. The second plate (receiver aerial) responds with a time-lag of x/c seconds(where x is the distance between the aerials or plates), and with a voltageof vy/(y + x), where v is the value in the first plate, y is the length ofthe plates (assuming both are parallel), and x is the distance between the plates. This formula is the simplest possible formula that reduces to vvolts when the ratio x/y is small (normal capacitors) and but becomes vy/x volts for radio systems (so that the radio signal strength in volts/metre falls off inversely with distance of the constant length receiver aerialfrom the transmitter).

Maxwell's displacement current equation can be derived entirely from Catt's word. It is: i = # .(dE/dt). My analysis below is confirmed by Catt's co-author Dr Walton: The two curl 'Maxwell' (Heaviside) equations are unified by the Heaviside vector E = cB, where E is electric field strength and B is magnetic fieldstrength, and all three vectors E, c, and B are orthagonal, so the curlvector (difference in gradients in perpendicular directions) can be appliedsimply to this unique E=cB:

curl.E = c.curl.B
curl.B = (1/c).curl.E

Now, because any field gradient or difference between gradients (curl) isrelated to the rate of change of the field by the speed of motion of thefield (eg, dB/dt = -c dB/dr, where t is time and r is distance), we canreplace a curl by the product of the reciprocal of -c and the rate of field change:

curl.E = c [-(1/c)dB/dt] = -dB/dt (Faraday's law of induction)
curl.B = (1/c) [-(1/c) dE/dt] = -(1/c^2 ) dE/dt

which when compared toAmpere's empirical law immediately gives Maxwell's dimensionally correct approximation: i = # .(dE/dt).For the second part see Catt-Davidson-Walton paper http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm: For the Walton voltage stepwise charging contradict's the continuous exponential model from Maxwell's displacement current.

Part of the problem is with Maxwell ignoring the mechanism of spatial flow of energu in capacitor plates, and part is the error of Catt and Walton in using Heaviside's flawed model of 'energy current' where at the front the change in voltage from 0 to v volts is assumed to occur instantly (in zero time), so Maxwell's displacement current is there i = permittivity.dE/dt = permittivity.dv/(x.dt) = permittivity.dv/(0) = infinite. The associated electric current with that infinite gradient in electric field would be infinite, and would result in infinite electromagnetic radiation/'radio' transmission sideways (in the direction of traditional 'displacement current'). This is obviously wrong. In all real pulses, electric fields can't alter instantly. There is a small delay, a real rise time, which prevents the infinite result. The 'displacement current' effect is however a perfect mutual electromagnetic radiation energy exchange effect in a transmission line, which exactly cancels out at large distances from the transmission line by virtue of total (complete) interference.

Hence, Maxwell's model is wrong: instead of a time-varying electric field causing a perpendicular displacement current, the true model is this: the gradient of the electric field in the conductor causes an electric current, which in turn causes perpendicular emission of electromagnetic radiation, which causes a similar effect to the mythical 'displacement current' postulated by Maxwell. Hence, Maxwell's entire electromagnetic unification is a fraud. The corrected model is entirely compatible with quantum field theory, and sheds light on why classical electromagnetism failed to describe the radiation emission from atomic electrons in Bohr's model!

In normal radio transmission the signal frequency is obviously matched to the aerial like a tuning fork, with a loading coil as necessary. So the dE/dt due to the radio feed would govern the transmission, not steps. Catt's stepwise curve kicks in where you have a constant step applied to the aerial, like a capacitor plate charging up. dE/dt then becomes very high while the pulse is reflecting (and this adding to more incoming energy) at the end of the aerial or capacitor plate. Obviously any real signal will have a rise time, so dE/dt will not be infinite.

The actual value of dE/dt will gradually fall as the capoacitor charges and equal to approximately (assuming uniform rise): v/(XT) where X is the distance over which voltage step v rises, X = cT where T is the rise-time of the Heaviside signal. Hence, dE/dt ~ v/(XT) = v/(cT^2).

It is often very large, however, causing high frequency transients to be emitted which cause EMC problems that cost innocent people their lives in many situations in today's electronic world.

"In electrical energy transfer the charges don't have to move (if you fire two similar logic steps through one another in opposite directions, there is no electric current while they overlap, and no resistance, so electric current is dead as the mechanism for energy transfer in electricity), electric current plays no role in the process of the electrical energy transfer (only in resistance, where electrons remove energy from the Heaviside energy current), and the illusion of moving charge is the edge of the light-speed Heaviside energy current; electromagnetic force radiation (gauge boson photon of quantum field theory)." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt

A turkey breeding (or string theory) community can’t afford a diversity that would make the most popular theory (strings/turkeys) look silly. Dictators just try to suppress all criticism and shoot the messengers. Instead of telling them what they don’t like to hear and having them doing the shooting, you need to adopt more sturdy methods and go on a turkey cull.

Once they define string theory as being such a beautiful piece of genuine science, they are actually defending science by censoring out criticism. You have to see this from their warped perspective!

So the Royal Society is actively trying to get science taken completely off the internet, see Motl’s complaints about it. Because string theory predictions are so similar (in testability) to certain crackpotism about how many fairies can sit on the tip of a pin, the Royal Society fears that the enlightenment will soon end unless authoritative censorship of ideas and data is stringently enforced. A terrible danger to real science arises from allowing heretics to come up with new models which might one day discredit some dogma or orthodoxy which is revered. Since there is so much of this in string theory, the danger is really very acute.

One man who should be applauded is Professor Lee Smolin. At http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm he writes:

"Einstein's ability to see flaws and his fierce refusal to compromise had real repercussions. His professors did not support him in his search for an academic job and he was unemployed until he found work as a patent inspector."

"By virtue of his involvement, Catt knows all the ins and outs of one of the major scientific scandals of the last 15 years, viz. the systematic suppression in the world of electronics of all publications about the phenomenon of the so-called glitch and its ramifications."

- Professor Edsger W. Dijkstra, Burroughs Research Fellow [28]

"There was a realisation in the mid 1970s that a capacitor was in fact a transmission line ... Catt, attempting to bypass what he felt were erroneous interpretations, based everything on those concepts first proposed by Heaviside. The price that must be paid for this is computational complexity as the treatment is distributed in space. Nevertheless, his formulations of propagating TEM waves involve a network which looks identical to what we now call a two-dimensional series TLM mesh … Both John and Catt provide numerical modelling systems which are based on the use of electrical networks to treat electromagnetic analogues of physical problems. … The approaches of Johns and Catt provide a firm basis for the rules that are applied and once this is clear, then it is possible to intrude into that 'what-if' land (what if we relax some of the strict electromagnetics rules?) and research of this nature is in progress at this moment."

- Some insights into the history of numerical modelling, by D. de Cogan, School of Information Systems, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, recent IEE paper: PDF[29], http [30] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivor_Catt

1. Knowledge is power.
2. It's not what you know, but who you know.

The two sayings above tend to contradict each other... In the same way a single word can convey opposite information depending on the tone of voice: compare "yes!" spoken softly with a smile to "Y--E--S?" shouted in anger at a fool. The political world has plenty of Orwellian double-speak.

The fool is the person who ignores these subtle issues, and pretends that they don't exist. People with a hearing impairment which leads to problems in understanding the subtle underlying signs and double-speak, like the various tones of voice to convey different meanings of the same word, are said to have a medical condition such as autism. The mainstream is defines as being correct. In 1930s Germany or Russia, merely pointing out the existence of irrational dictatorship would be defined by the mainstream as insanity. So some types of eccentricity are not absolutely fixed definitions for all time, but are merely relative to the political situation in fashion or in power.

One politician might look "arrogant" to one group of people and simultaneously "authoritative" to another. It is not clear which the person is; there is a relativism at play. In science, as Tony Smith says, there should be shame but there is not. Science is just as political as the worst, most bigoted politics there has ever been in human history!

Compare the mountaineer to the scientist. If the mountaineer climbs a mountain which has never been climbed before, he needs to be famous enough or rich enough or well connected enough in the first place that the event is recorded or that he at least has the means (rugged cameras, etc.) to provide some evidence. You could say he could leave something behind at the top to "prove it", but the idem may be buried under ice or blown away. It may never be found or if you are paranoid and conspiratorial, the next person to climb the mountain may not spend much time searching to try to find evidence that he is the second guy to arrive at the summit. (Easier to just take some pictures and start down again without seriously looking!)

The mountaineer who has a difficult struggle, or who keeps on trying despite setbacks and failed attempts, might gradually lose media interest even if he had it to begin with (sorry if this sounds illucid, it is half-joking!). If he eventually makes it with no reporters, he could end up having done something which is unrecognised. (Of course, it is a bad analogy. A mountaineer risks his life for an abstract goal, while a scientist risks merely a career for useful knowledge.)

(Re: the joke at the top of the page. The context is this: Ivor Catt is the victim of the joke. Cook explained to Catt that Catt's dismissal of 'Maxwell's equations' is wrong because Catt starts out by taking 2 of the 20 differential equations of Maxwell and then shows that those 2 equations, 10% of the total, contain 2 important constants of nature. Catt falsely concludes that 'Maxwell's equations have no content'. Catt REFUSES TO RESPOND FOR NEARLY A DECADE TO COOK'S EXPLANATION OF CATT'S ERROR. Then Catt then proceeds to try to say (on his own internet site somewhere) Cook is 'confused'. In fact, Cook is cernatinly not confused, and Catt is refusing to drop a falsified claim. Unfortunately, Catt does not get everything entirely wrong, like the capacitor charging in steps or wafer scale integration. Even if Catt eliminated errors from his writings, his genuine advances might still be suppressed by the bureaucratic inertia, incompetence, and vindictiveness of Professor X.)

Radio emission results when the current in the aerial varies with time, ie if di/dt is not zero (this is equivalent to saying that radio emission results from the acceleration of charge). There is a variation in the E-field along the conductor, even in direct current, over the small distance at the front of the step where the voltage rises from 0 to v. The current similarly rises from 0 to i. So there is radio energy transfer in a charging capacitor.

(1) In order to detect radio energy, you need to have an oscillatory wave. Feynman says the normal forces of electromagnetism (for example, attraction between the two charged capacitor plates) is some kind of exchange of force-carrying energy (photons called gauge bosons). Feynman does not say any more about the dynamics. However, the continuous action of such forces implies a continuous exchange of energy. This is like Prevost's breakthrough in thermodynamics of 1792, when he realised that in the case now called oscillatory photons (infrared radiation), there is a continuous exchange at constant temperature.

(2) Point (1) above says that energy is being continuous exchanged as shown by the Feynman diagram quantum field theory. This is not a heresy. Heuristic development of the subject in a physical way is a step forward. Oscillatory photons carry heat, others carry forces. Proof: http://feynman137.tripod.com/