return to homepage
return to updates
by Miles Mathis
Einstein and Lorentz
One of the interesting outcomes of my corrections to the relativity transforms concerns what is now called either Lorentz variance or Lorentz violations. These two terms have spawned a whole subfield of pseudo-research, but they were originally invented to explain experimental outcomes that did not match Einstein's equations. Since the new physicists did not know how to correct the equations, or how to even begin correcting them, they instead defined the equations as absolutely correct and then began codifying all the necessary tweeks under the heading of Lorentz variations (or violations). They did not consider these "variations" to be falsifications of the math. No, the variations were embraced as another subfield, one where new researchers could coin new terms, create new particles, and pretend to be physicists in all the new ways.
Jeffrey Goldstone is perhaps the ultimate example of this. He invented something called the Goldstone boson. A boson is generally any new particle that fills any old hole, and you get to name the boson for yourself, if you find a proper hole. The Goldstone boson is basically a phonon, and a phonon is a photon that is moving too slow, for reasons unknown in this case. What Goldstone did, among other things, is use the holes in Einstein's equations to build himself a little theory. When an experiment is spitting out less energy than Einstein's equations are predicting, Goldstone tells us this is because phonons are involved instead of photons. So Einstein's equations aren't failing; Einstein just didn't know about the phonon. Of course Goldstone does't say it in this straightforward way. No, we are told that the experimental failure is caused by a "spontaneously broken symmetry". This broken symmetry is used to explain many of the current gaps in physics, and it turns up in gravity models, electroweak models, magnetic models, and so on. Anywhere that the equations aren't working, the events are said to be in a state of broken symmetry. Since the physicist just made up the idea out of nothing as a stop-gap, he has no mechanism for it, hence the added adjective "spontaneous". If something is spontaneous, you don't have to offer a mechanical cause for it, which is convenient. An awful lot of new concepts in physics seem to be spontaneous, for some reason.
I can only touch on the absurdities here, since I cannot waste time addressing all the meaningless new fields, particles, and maths. But I will offer you this as an example of how the theory of violation tends to spin out: Wikipedia tells us that, "The phonons travel at LESS than the speed of light. In general relativistic theories, this leads to a massive graviton (note that this is different from massive gravity, which is Lorentz covariant) which travels at less than the speed of light (because the graviton devours the phonon)".* Lovely, isn't it? The first lie (a slow photon) requires an even bigger lie (a massive graviton), and the second lie is a double lie, since here we have the tweeking of a particle that doesn't exist. The phonon, which doesn't exist here and is only an outcome of a bad equation, requires the recalibration of the graviton—a particle that was manufactured to fill another hole caused by a different bad equation. As if that isn't enough, we have to imagine one fake particle devouring the other; and this meal is spontaneous, we suppose, since there is no possible mechanism for it. The phonon is devoured only because we don't want to have to look at it any more after the experiment.
Everybody involved pretends this is not extravagantly dishonest, and they pretend this because the new subfield of Lorentz violations gives them something to do. Contemporary physics is bursting with similar fake projects consisting of fake particles in fake fields proposed by fake physicists. String theory is the largest and fakest of these. But Lorentz variance and violations have produced an impressive array of absurd papers, all of them even more transparently fake than is now usual in physics. It has spawned "very special relativity" and "extra special relativity", two theories that are not special at all. The first still allows violations, since it does no correcting: it is just more Minkowski hijinx with null vectors and suchlike, allowing time reversal and other non-physical abstractions. Since I have shown that Minkowski's math is compromised by a simple algrebraic error, all this is folderol. The second was devised to answer the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit on cosmic ray energy, which of course uses Einstein's kinetic energy equation, which I have corrected. Once the equation is corrected, the GZK limit is higher, which negates the violation of the Oh-my-God particles. No violation, no need for esoteric new maths and theories.
Anyone with any residue of honesty, logic, or rigor can see that everything to do with Lorentz violations is manufactured, and that the only sensible thing to do is to correct the original equations so that they don't fail. This had always been the normal procedure in physics, and it still is in any subfields with any integrity. You don't formalize the gap between prediction and experiment by assigning it a new theory, new particles, and new terminology. You don't call this gap a variation, and pretend that it is somehow an extension of the original prediction and the original equations. No, you close the gap by creating new equations that do away with the gap directly. This latter is science; the former is just job creation.
My corrections to the transforms of relativity close the gap in this old-fashioned way. In doing this, they totally destroy the entire field of Lorentz variance. I have shown that there are no Lorentz violations (other than the bad old math that caused the problems). There is no longer any gap that needs to be filled. But even if new gaps arise in the future, I would not admit the need for new variance, since the failure of my equations would not be variance, but failure. I would hope someone would correct my equations further, rather than jerry-rig the theory so that my equations could continue to stand.
Einstein would say the same, I am certain. He would detest the whole subfield of variance, which has made a mockery of his theory. His theory was a good theory, and good theories are not in need of filling or bombast. At the proper times, they are in need of correction and extension, but this is achieved by better equations, not by filler particles and dishonest pushing and pulling.
My theory and equations bypass and falsify all variance not only because they are able to correct the mathematical mistakes of Einstein, but because I deny that Lorentz variance ever had any scientific meaning. Experiments do not "vary" from the prediction of an equation. Experiments confirm or do not confirm an equation. If a repeatable and respected and logically prepared experiment does not confirm an equation, then the equation must be changed or extended. The math and theory must conform to the experiment, and it must do this in sensible ways. It used to be understood that you could not just measure the gap of failure and cut a particle out of cloth to fit that failure. The phonon is just such a particle. It is like betting someone that you can guess their weight using a complex theory you have. You guess 180 pounds. When you weigh them the scale says 190 pounds. You claim that you are still correct, since according to your new extended theory—just created after the weighing—all people who weigh ten pounds more than your original prediction have ghosts that weigh exactly ten pounds. Then you guess that a second person weighs 130 pounds; she actually weighs 120 pounds. So you create another extension to your theory that states that all people who weigh ten pounds less than your first prediction have holes left by departed ghosts. You call your theory extensions your Goldstone variations, in homage to the master. Any new variations caused by actually weighing new people can be added to your prestigious list of variations, and you can now create a vast computer model to house them. You can further categorize them, calling all variations within ten pounds firmions; and all variations above 50 pounds, fations. Physical Review Letters and ArXiv will publish a 4-page announcement of your model to a stunned world and Wikipedia will update your fans regularly on new variations. The Dalai Lama will rush to comment, and then of course Richard Gere.
You can now see why physics has become uncorrectable. The economy of physics cannot afford the job loss. One person correcting one central equation can put 10,000 people out of work. One person correcting 10 equations can put 100,000 people out of work. Seen like this, truth is the ultimate disaster. Truth will not set you free, if you happen to be a fake theorist or a researcher in fake theory. Truth will dry up your funding, purge you from the encyclopedia, jeopardize your book deals, and sour your Hollywood contacts.
If an alien sent us a corrected version of our high-school physics book, 99% of current research would immediately evaporate. It would have to be redirected. But it couldn't be redirected without a nearly total personnel change. Do you think the Jeffrey Goldstones of the physics world—used to creating fake particles and writing books with glossy pictures and creating empty computer models and giving eachother awards—do you think they would be useful as servants of the truth, even if you could compel them somehow to want to be? This would be like asking the politicians we already have to begin to be real public servants. All these people only have a talent for self-promotion, and even if you vaccinated them with some sort of truth serum, they would still be lacking the fundamental education. I have talked to some of these people. They don't know the first thing about kinematics or mechanics or simple math. They have spent all their time with sexy fake maths and fields and particles, and real math and logic just mystify them.
*all parentheses theirs
If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.