The Contemporary Physics Establishment:

Being an illustrated tale of highmindedness and hubris in the Physics Establishment

As also an Imaginarium of ideas not dreamed of even in science fiction

Essays on:
Physics in the Twenty-first Century

Read the Series Introduction

a FreeBook by
Bibhas De

Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by Bibhas R. De. All rights reserved.

website statistics

Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars

Proverbs 9:1

Expanded 2006 Edition!
(Visit the refurbished Physics Gallery of Forbidden Perspectives)




The graphics do not belong to this site. They are displayed by calls to their original sites. The sources of these graphics used in this Home Page and its supporting pages can be seen by right-clicking on the pictures, and then clicking on "Properties"


The Four Proposed Foundational Discoveries


of ideas dreamed of not even in science fiction

"To imagine the unimaginable is the highest use of the imagination."

--Cynthia Ozick, US novelist, short-story writer

1. The Magnetohydroelectric Theory: Missing chapter of Electromagnetic Theory (1978)   

VERIFICATION STATUS: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

2. Vacuum Electromagnetic Interaction: Non-Electromagnetic Wave (1992)    

VERIFICATION STATUS:     >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

3. A New View of Magnetic Field: Matterless Gravitational Mass (1996)   


4. The Missed Physics: Source-free Magnetic Structures (2001)   


(These proposed discoveries are fully documented in peer-reviewed scientific literature in exactly the same formal and rigorous manner in which all proposed scientific discoveries are recorded. They go to the unexplored depths of the very foundation of physics. And they take us to an entirely new world of TransMaxwellian and TransEinsteinian Physics. If any of these ideas were correct, it would have required elementary textbooks to be revised, physics teaching to be updated and public-funded research to be reviewed. Yet, none of these ideas has been refuted, or addressed, or even so much as merely cited in a passing context in the scientific literature - as of October 2005. The Physics Community has deliberately chosen to completely ignore these in a strange display of collective aberrant conduct - to my knowledge unknown in the history of modern natural science.)


So how about this weather we're having?!

Please also visit these web pages:

(The truth is out there!) .

(Index for the Physics Essay Series) .


(Is the Big Bang Black Body Bogus?)




The proposing of a theoretical discovery in physics conventionally proceeds as follows: (1). The researcher formulates his idea in a way he can defend to expert colleagues. (2). He defends it: He does so by giving talks or having individual discussions, distributing copies of his write-up, or directly submitting his formal paper for publication. (3). In any of these venues, the idea is first recognized to be a proposed discovery, and then evaluated as such with extra care. Recognizing it as a proposed discovery means that evasive reviews like "I am not convinced" and "You violated this or that" are not a ground for rejection. (4). It is refuted and rejected; or agreed to or given the benefit of doubt, and proceeds to documentation. (5). The expert scientific community at large discusses and debates it in various forums. (6). The idea is accepted, and in due course becomes part of scientific knowledge; rejected (for reasons given publicly); or is put on hold pending experimental verification (if applicable). This is how the process works in actuality within the Physics Establishment.

In the instances of the first three discoveries above, I fulfilled my responsibility: Steps (1) and (2). The Establishment (after long battle), fulfilled its responsibility (3) –(4). It then reneged completely on its responsibility (5) and (6). In the case of the fourth discovery, I likewise fulfilled my responsibility. The Establishment reneged on its responsibility (3) – (6).

Everything I have proposed is amenable to experimental verification or experimental search. This is in stark contrast to the lofty mathematical abstractions (from the establishment’s midriff contemplators) that do receive full attention in accordance with steps (1) –(6) above, and more. They are given the deathless status - and the issue of verifiability is muted. This establishment has lost its moral compass.

Wholesale Intellectual Corruption

When an insignificant author properly publishes a scientific paper whose title clearly identifies it as proposing a significant foundational discovery, and decades go by and the scientific community doesn’t say peep, and when this happens again and again – it is, beyond any lofty self-serving explanations or highminded butt-covering excuses – a clear case of wholesale intellectual corruption of the community. It occurs because individual members, who may in private life be conscientious – feel safe to act badly within a collective. And once this corruption has occurred, no member thinks he has to do anything individually about this. And there is no external vigilance whatsoever - there is absolutely no accountability for this behavior. This same corruption also expresses itself in other ways of conduct of this community - the way hideous skin afflictions may erupt all over the body due to an internal disease. All the signs are here - all you need is to look from the correct vantage point. Read on - and you’ll see.

"Moral cowardice and intellectual corruption are the natural concomitants of unchallenged privilege." - Noam Chomsky


Principles of Academic Criticism

This site is at first an unadorned exposition of the intellectual decadence and declivity in today's entrenched Physics community ("The Physics Establishment"). Criticism of scholastic communities is nothing new. The basic principles of criticism I employ here are, first, the same as those employed by the Physics Establishment itself in a highly publicized and self-congratulatory attack on another learned community, in the book Intellectual Impostures by physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont. A second standard of criticism I use is the book Impostors in the Temple by Martin Anderson, a sad tale of decadence in the academia. And in point of fact, I am not saying much more than what the Establishment physicists say about one another in private.


I employ a third standard of criticism: The manner of ostracizing by the Physics Establishment of Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann over the Cold Fusion episode. I also employ a fourth standard of criticism: The grounds for the high profile attack by the Physics Establishment upon the Science Advisor to President George W. Bush.

In all of the above instances, specific individuals identified by name were the subjects of criticism/attack.

One other point should be kept in mind: When you choose to stand in public limelight, the public can choose to look at you anyway they want - through naked eyes, camera viewfinder, opera glasses, microscope, and proctoscope. That is what comes with the celebrity status.

Don't turn away, now!

So, in as much as you, the scientific community and the broader community interested in science, did not cringe away from all of the above criticisms, you should not now cringe away from the present criticism.

You will not be able to relate to my essays unless you can see past the trappings of academic position (such as, for example “Rufus T. Firefly Distinguished Professor of Physics”, “Professor Sir …”, This Prize, That Medal. Be especially vigilant when they lay on you one of them Professor-Sir deals!). I would not subscribe to any notions that the Physics Establishment is somehow above it all. It is true that being at the very top of the intellectual hierarchy of learned communities, they enjoy the status of unchallenged privilege. They have carefully cultivated an aura of invincibility. They can attack other disciplines - but they are immune to attack. Who has given them this immunity? If you think about it, these people put their pants on one leg at a time - like everybody else. As you will read below, it is clear from today's media blitz that these people would now like you to deify them (and hence the religious undertone/overtone of this entire exposition!). I suggest that you instead reserve that attribute for the likes of Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama.

So divide these exalted academic creations into manageable pieces - then examine piece by piece.

Some people have wondered why I sometimes capitalize (Physics Establishment). It is because I sometimes see this community as a seedy house of some kind.

The Quantifiers of Human Spirit

Since this web site is also about possible fantastic new frontiers of science, I will also tell you what other notions I would not subscribe to. I would not subscribe to the notions that all the great discoveries have been accomplished, and that if there are a few remaining, they can be enumerated. Without dwelling on these, let me simply present to you here two good examples of intellectual posturing - two recent books called The End of Science and What Remains to be Discovered, books I would describe as Dumb and Dumber -



Not my job, Man!

Now follows an extensively documented account of conduct unbecoming on the part of the contemporary Physics Establishment, with regard to a proposed discovery: the source-free magnetic structures.. This is not a specialized or obscure issue of physics. It is something that every person who calls himself a physicist has a clear stake in.

It has been said that the only condition necessary for such conduct to thrive is for good people to say nothing.

The people within the Establishment are saying nothing.

A society has great expectation of a member to be graceful when he is wronged. They praise his equanimity. It does not take an expert psychologist to see why this is so. It is because this helps the society’s own level of comfort in dealing with the situation. It is the basic instinct of self-preservation, expressed as highmindedness. In the unfolding of human affairs, when a person finds himself shunned, there is a time to be graceful about it. But there is also a time to be angry. If his friends have dropped him from their guest lists, he ought to gracefully accept this. If a church has excommunicated him for his views on abortion, it is time to be angry. If one is angry when he ought to be graceful, he should probably do some soul searching. If he is graceful when he ought to be angry, he is a damn fool.

We are dealing here with Physics 101. There is absolutely no grounds for any practicing physicist to turn away from this, saying: "This is not my job." That is shirking responsibility. The debate itself is defined with extreme mathematical precision - there is nothing speculative here. Read here how two Establishment experts tried to tackle the issue, left it unresolved and moved on. Then read how the "Randi Brigade" of the Establishment tried to tackle this in their zeal to rid the world of demons, then walked away muttering excuses why they can't.


How they ran me out of Dodge City

So, basically, they tried to disprove the proposed discovery before its publication, failed, and then prevented publication anyway. This happened at some twenty of their journals, consuming five years of my scientific life. Finally, when I tried to at least air my story through the Establishment’s standard news vehicles Physics Today and Nature that are routinely used to discuss unresolved scientific controversies, they shut me out of those as well. And when I sent an email to many relevant people telling them this story, including many who know me, most everyone remained silent. But the rebuffs did not stop. Here is an example: James Glanz, a physics reporter for Science, sent me this cease-and-desist notice: "Stop sending mail to this address."

In this way, every door was shut on my face.

The fix is in....

They also have put in some built-in safeguards for this type of actvity of theirs. They have set up criteria for identifying crackpots and bogus science. One of these criteria is that the perpetrator of bogus science rails against the Establishment, claiming to have been wronged. So they can ostracize you, and when you speak up, they can say: See, according to the criterion xxx, this is a crackpot. Another criterion is that the crackpot pretends to be a lone genius - working in forced isolation. So they can excommunicate you, and then say: See, according to the criterion yyy, this is a crackpot. And if you think that you would go to the mass media to air the story of the suppression, think again! They have got this criterion zzz that says a crackpot runs to the mass media before evaluation by the scientific community.

Now I have become my own media...

But in the end, all their fixes failed to contain the matter. A courageous editor of an enlightened, peer-reviewed journal gave my paper a home. He also helped me air the controversy. Then the Establishment tried to disprove the paper again, failed again, and then assumed this current posture of dignified silence. May be this is their ultimate fix: Assume the posture of highmindedness.

They have done everything but that one thing which is the most natural, most time-honored and most honest and honorable practice in a learned community: Refute the published paper in public.

The large number of people involved in these proceedings amply justifies my use of the term Physics Establishment. Many more people (some five hundred) were informed on this matter at various stages, but they remained silent. Practically every major physics organization is represented in this matter. And as I said before, the media protected the Establishment. So, the standard demurrer "Don't paint everyone with the same brush" does not apply in this case. Moreover, if there are some members of the Establishment who feel they are being unfairly lumped with others, they have had a few years now to come forward and do the right thing. None has.

Now I have become my own media - thanks to the opportune dawning of the Internet Age. This website has to be seen in that light as I bring my message to everyman's desk. Here is no matter of my ego - here is only the matter of my having been reduced to where I have to beat my own scientific drum, or disappear. I choose the former.

Ethics 101

In good science, there is always made room for publishing curious but questionable papers that have some probability of being proved wrong. This allowance may in fact be the very soul of scientific publishing. This Establishment does publish "revolutionary" physics, but only when such papers come from their midst: Empty space has a preferred directionality; a top spinning in one direction weighs more than when spinning in the other direction; etc. These have been proved wrong. Thus the guiding principle with this Establishment is that great discoveries can be proposed only by entitled folks. In other words, as I have said in the article below: "What right has a wheelwright to write about the rites of the church?"

Thus we are dealing here with Ethics in Science 101. A learned community has the absolute duty to come to terms with a documented matter that calls into question their essential understanding, just as the Catholic clergy had the absolute duty to come to terms with that matter that called into question their essential faith. The clergy accepted their responsibility; the Physics Establishment did not. Make no mistake about it: The dignified silence the Establishment now assumes is the same one the Clergy assumed before they were forced to face up to their responsibility. When you cannot account for yourself, assume a posture of dignified silence.

A man’s true character is never tested as well as when he faces great adversity in life. Likewise, the true character of a group is best tested by how they tackle extraordinary problems. Again, the Catholic Clergy is an example. The White House after 9/11 is an example. NASA after a disaster is an example. What is an equivalent example in physics from recent past? Dealing with scientific fraud is significant news, but it is not an extraordinary problem to tackle. Annual Fall models of the Time Machine or the Universe are not an extraordinary development. But a revolutionary scientific proposition that goes to very foundation of physics is. What the Physics Establishment, when presented with this extraordinary problem, has done is that they made an extraordinary mess of it, and then simply walked away from it.

My Physics Worldview

Also, my proposed discovery did not suddenly fall from a tree. It is the continuation of some twenty years worth of lonely development of new ideas in physics (all documented in standard, peer-reviewed journals), calling for an expansion and a revision of the foundations of physics at the textbook level. They call into question our fundamental understanding of all the three components of the Universe:

(a) Matter
(b) Energy
(c) Empty Space

and even suggest and underlying unifying entity. On this body of work, this "ideocidal" Establishment has not said peep. The excommunication is now complete.

If you explore this elaborate web site sitting right at your terminal, you will find that I have develpoed an entirely new worldview of physics - starting from first principles.

A comprehensive picture of the Universe is emergent from the missing foundation of physics that I have restored through the above body of work. This Universe has as its ultimate constituent the magnetic field, and as the ultimate particle the source-free magnetic structure (= the "static" or "stilled" photon?). Its understanding requires understanding TransMaxwellian Physics and TransEinsteinian Mass-Energy connection. This view may make go away many of today’s hot, career-building puzzles set up by theoretical physicists and cosmologists. These people have long been posturing in public about how their beautiful minds are yearning for intimations of immortality: The knowledge of such things as Grand Unification Theory, Theory of Everything, Equation for Everything, etc et al. In essence, they have set up their own game - the search for the Holy Grail of Physics, an intellectual version of TV’s Survivor Show.

The central workspace of Physics has been requisitioned for Celebrity Cotillion

If they were truly interested in truth, they would drop everything and look at the missing foundation of physics restored in my work. They would not, for example, be wallowing in this raucous partying over String Theory which – high mathematics though it may be - is a bogus science, even by its own definition. When it became clear that what they had done was nonsense, they increasingly piled more nonsense on it to salvage the previously accumulated nonsense. In the end, they needed parallel universes, 11 dimensions and whatnots to justify the enterprise which should have been shelved long ago. And they developed a fantastically elaborate publicity machine to pass this continuously evolving Escherscape off as great physics. Research in hidden dimensions and parallel universes when questions of relevant basic physics are pending is like research in "Mating behavior of the Unicorn". Here appears to be an attempt to simulate scientific intellect. The media-manufactured scientific genius - that's the coming thing. Actually, it is already here. I saw one scientist's professional resume claim, under his accomplishments, that he was declared to be among TIME Magazines "Fifty for the Future".

What the media does here is, first, it makes someone a superfamous physicist - which it can. Then it works to gradually blur the distinction between superfamous physicist and superphysicist, and presto, you are there!

A lost generation

Today, many of the talented young generation are running after String Theory like children running after the Pied Piper of Hamelin. What a waste!

And while physicists and physics media are swooning over each other in this joint effort to concoct genius, it may be that the most significant development in physics since Einstein - the opening of an entire new world of TransMaxwellian Physics by little known individuals - is going unnoticed as a very minor footnote in Electrical Engineering. The Establishment insiders do not even have the quintessential attribute of a good scientist: To look at a new result or a new idea, and sense its place in the great scheme of things. The Knight cannot recognize the Holy Grail!

Instead, when confronted with with the new development, their Thought Police places the unentitled folks within this regulation straitjacket:

Having thus shackled and manacled and disabled these folks within a more-than-a-century old fortress, the anointed ones can now safely explore beyond the outermost bounds of the Universe. They are not bound by the existing laws of physics.

Fame in the Age of Fakery

Fame in physics today is a phenomenon phonier than a two-horned unicorn. I have given above a glaring instance of how little-known individuals who are bringing epoch-making advances in physics languish in obscurity, because they and their work are consigned there by the mighty Establishment. These impediments out of the way, the Establishment bigwigs can now concentrate on telling the public about their own noble souls. Their Big Ideas. Their vaunted Institute for Advanced Navel Contemplation. O the agony of the quest for truth! O the ecstasy of finding out how a black hole mates with a wormhole! Michelangelo Buonarroti's got nothing on them. It is quite amusing to watch these people jockeying for limelight. Some today have got Fan Clubs (Honest!). There is one that can no longer distinguish between a fan and a fellow physicist. Before long, you will have to correspond with their New York Publicity Agent to contact them.

The Hollywood imagemakers could learn a thing or two from today's Physics Establishment.

If you want to talk about the issue of intellectual poseurs brought up by physicists recently, you could do worse than start with today's Physics Establishment itself. Just pick any of today’s hot celebs, and ask in simple, clear, direct terms: What contribution has he made to the foundation of physics now, exactly?

Then ask the same question about my work that is in plain, documented evidence. Simply go to the pulldown menu above.

I also tried to get the government funding agencies to stimulate a discussion (it is part of their function), but there also I was rebuffed. They backed the Establishment. Basically, they told me to take a hike.

Spurned ideas don't die; they just get usurped

But this complete rejection of my ideas may not be the end of the story. If you see, after an appropriate interval, some of my ideas resurface from within the Establishment as great discoveries by one or more of their number – publicized as such by their running dogs in the physics media, there should be little doubt in your mind as to what is going on. This comment is not without factual basis: Read the article that follows.

Physics Inc.

"Vanity of Vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities, all is vanity." Here in essence then is today's superfamous physicist- self-inflated, colleagues-inflated, media-inflated:

Today a bright young student aspiring to become a scientist might look around (read news, browse the Internet etc, visit university campuses etc) and think: If I am at the cutting edge of Physics, I will be calculating how universes bang against each other, or experimenting a lifetime on how a particle exits to a parallel universe. If I am at the cutting edge of Medicine, I might find a way of preventing cancer. If I am at the cutting edge of Environmental Sciences, I might find a way to replenish the ozone layer. If I am at the cutting edge of Chemistry, I might delve into the ultimate lifeforce. If I am in Earth Sciences, I might find an effective predictor of earthquakes. And so on and so forth. Let’s face the truth: Physics has been ‘exoticized’ clear out of its attractiveness to the level-headed, discerning young as a satisfying career path.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that at the core of this particular learned community at this time, there is no collective conscience. Today's Establishment is a hollow shell of its glorious self of a few decades ago. Its leaders today are pursuing Hollywood-style celebrity rather than scientific truth. They are merchandizing their beautiful minds under the noble cover of physics just as the scholarly Dr. Deepak Chopra, MD is merchandizing herbal remedies and essential oils under the sublime cover of Eastern spiritualism. Taking a cue from the world of Wall Street and Madison Avenue, the physics glitterati have learned to talk a good talk. And, being the cleverest of all learned communities, they have perfected the art of intellectual posturing - even as they attacked another learned community for engaging in "intellectual impostures". The public is not able to see through all this.

If I could give you one thought to leave here with, it would be this: It may be that the future of physics is being shaped outside the Establishment, without the Establishment, and in spite of the Establishment.


Let us put some faces to this faceless Establishment. The following is an example of the Establishment people who have a particular professional responsibility to come forward and address the issue, or cause the issue to be addressed. The reason is identified in brief in parenthesis. I have attempted to contact each of them at one time or another. They are informed on this matter.

Martin Blume, Editor-in-Chief, American Physical Society (nixed the paper)
William F. Brinkman, President, American Physical Society (as a key leader)
Marc H. Brodsky, President, American Institute of Physics (as a key leader)
Ronad C. Davidson, Princeton University (nixed the paper)
Anne Davies, Head, Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (as a key leader)
Stephen Hawking, Cambridge University (mass in cosmology)
Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University (nixed the paper)
John Marburger, Head, Office of Science and Technology Policy (as a key leader)
John Pendry, Imperial College, London (nixed the paper)
Frank Wilczek, MIT (expert on matterless mass)
Raymond S. Willey, University of Pittsburg (nixed the paper)
Edward Witten, Princeton University(expert on the ultimate particle of matter)


Has moved to its own new quarters! Click here


(The Excommunication Synod - Authoritative in private, Reticent in public)

"And to think that all that needed to happen, or needs to happen, anywhere along the line, any time, to put this matter to bed is for one person to say in public in a signed commentary what they all have been asserting with such authoritative force in private!"

" seems possible that my deduction has already been theoretically verified by the Establishment, and that result has been set aside."

Quoted from the article below



"The matter is closed."

British Royal Society



"We should reject this - this is nonsense."

British Institute of Physics



"At present there is no facility in this department to review material from the public."

Response from Prof. Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University on being told of my paper "Gravitational Mass of Magnetostatic Field" published in a major scientific journal

(Who you calling "public", dude?!)



"The author tries to answer all the anticipated objections. That sounds strange, as if he had already been rebuked a number of times!"

Joint evaluation by a team of European physicists



"The only consolation is that science is self-correcting and if you are right, later generations will know it. But accept that you will not get any credit! The sociologists of science point out that effects, laws, etc are never named for the first person to discover them, and that there are predictable, rational reasons for this."

A prominent Establishment insider to author



"Once again the ongoing saga of Dr. Bibhas R. De (a theorist being eschewed by the established scientific community and in particular the DOE). We have published this author’s initial foray into this vast wasteland in the Comments section of Vol. 3-5 ."

Dr. James P. Siepmann, Editor, Journal of Theoretics



"With a warning. I am not competent to evaluate what is said there (this website). At first glance this looks like typical crackpot railing against the Science Establishment, but on closer reading I find I don't think so. …..The question is, have those who ought to know seriously looked at this? If so, why haven't they published their refutation? I realize that not everyone who claims to have revolutionary ideas deserves a full hearing, but there comes a point where the minimum competence to be taken seriously has been demonstrated, and this, I think has been done in this case."

Dr. Jerry Pournelle, Host, CHAOS MANOR (






Diogenes was a Cynic philosopher of Sinope. It was said that he walked the streets of Athens in broad daylight with a lit lantern in hand, looking for an honest man. And though he apparently did not find an honest man, he had, in the process, exposed the vanity and selfishness of man.

Diogenes of Sinope: Looking for an Honest Man

This write-up is about the excommunication of a proposed discovery; about an "ideocidal" conduct on the part of a learned community, the contemporary physics establishment. I justify the usage of the term "Physics Establishment" from the fact that the following organizations, among others, suppressed the proposed discovery upon full deliberation:

American Physical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
British Institute of Physics
British Royal Society
Deutsche Phykalische Geselschaft
European Physical Society
The Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

At any given age, a collective human endeavor may appear noble beyond reproach. This may be true for a time, and then – imperceptible to the outside world – this may no longer be so. There are numerous examples from the recent past to illustrate this point about a gradual internal decay of "culture". The Catholic Clergy in America with regard to pedophilia; the Central Intelligence Agency with regard to analytical capability; NASA with regard to safety consciousness; National Laboratories with regard to security consciousness; and Corporations with regard to fiscal honesty are but a few examples. In all these instances, the long-term decay went unnoticed until some catastrophic events brought this to the fore. The Physics Establishment also has undergone a gradual change in internal culture. Its main attribute today is hubris that has accumulated pile high: deification, self-promotion, mutual aggrandizement, media hype etc. They are so deeply buried in this hubris that they do not even know where they are: They cannot see straight. But there is something unique about them: Their enterprise is so cerebral that the world outside of them is unable to judge them. This world can scarce judge, for example, what is true scientific advancement, and what is contemplation of personal navel. How can you judge if a Brain Surgeon did his job right or incompetently botched it - especially when his colleagues dummy up? The world simply has to take the Establishment’s word for how good they are.

So, in such a case, it is up to the Danes to bring to the world the news that there is something rotten in Denmark. In this case, we think of a disgruntled insider. But there are two factors that keep such an insider from exposing internal organizational decay: Fear and hope. Fear of repercussion, and hope that if he perseveres meekly and remains a "team player", things might eventually be set right for him - may be even before his demise. If not, then may be in his Obituary. Or, three hundred years from today, they may exhume his corpse and pardon it. Undoubtedly, he would receive well-meaning advice from many well-wishers to be graceful and hope for one of these outcomes, and keep his mouth shut. Only when on a rare occasion a person who is neither concerned about the repercussion nor puts his faith in the afterworld comes along and clashes with the Establishment, does it become possible for the outside world to see what is going on.




DISCOVERY: A novel observation such as a natural phenomenon
PROFOUND DISCOVERY: A phenomenon no one dreamed existed
GREAT DISCOVERY: A phenomenon no one imagined existed
STANDARD DISCOVERY: Extension of previous discoveries; incremental discovery
PRETEND DISCOVERY: = Fake claim of discovery, usually by the "discoverer"


GREAT DISCOVERER: Maxwell, Einstein
STANDARD DISCOVERER: Most contemporary discoverers in Physics
PRETEND DISCOVERER: Pick your examples from this article


Take for now only one symptom of this accumulated hubris: Today we have individuals anointing themselves "discoverers". One individual says he has made many discoveries in String Theory. One has discovered "asymptotic freedom". On this basis, every Ph. D. Thesis probably contains a discovery. It used to be that one discovered the structure of an atom, radio waves, pulsars, etc - some grand design or secret of nature. And if more examples are needed, just witness the scandals erupting today from the highest bastions of this Establishment about possible faking of discoveries. In the process they are cheapening the beautiful word discovery. This Establishment seems to be going through a final, biblical blowout phase of setting up and worshipping golden idols.

. . ... . . . . ...

The Synod in full regalia knights a discoverer demonstrating his discovery: The legendary monster of the lake!

As to the scandals, one who thinks in the light of clear reason, and with the knowledge of recent history, might come to the conclusion that these are a predictable end result of pursuing a culture of seeking celebrity status and fame. A very compliant science news media helps feed this culture, and the media at large takes over from there. As to the blame for the scandals, the fix is already in. The Establishment is now trying to say that a few rotten eggs (now cracked) are giving an otherwise fragrant fare a bad odor. We are self-policing, they are now saying. We have policies on research integrity, they are saying. I wouldn't fall for this. In the present instance, simply go back and read the list of organizations that tried to keep from seeing the light of day a proposed discovery in the most original sense of the term. I have emailed many hundreds of establishment physicists. None came forward to do the right thing. My experience with DOE shows that there really is no mechanism to address issues of research integrity in the Physics Establishment, until and unless they are caught in flagrante delicto.

.  .... . . . . ...

A full moon reveals the true story of the discovery: A desire at the Wishing Well; the knight is in considerable peril.

The entire discussion below is based on documentary edvidence emanating from the Establishment itself. There is here no unfairness to the Establishment whatsoever. Nor is this a complaint about the Establishment's unfair treatment of me. I have been able to publish and document all my ideas and thoughts against their stiffest opposition. I have prevailed. If they choose to continue to ignore my documented work, they do so now in plain view of the public.

Intellectual imposture; scientific imposture

So what is this about? This is about intellectual impostures and scientific impostures, impostures intellectuelles and impostures scientifiques.


Lest the reader should hasten to the view that the Establishment is not expected to attend to every crank that comes along, I add this at the outset. The work at issue is a mathematical deduction of a new foundational result - on the same logical footing, and at least of the same level of profoundness, as the deduction of electromagnetic waves. The question of correctness aside, for anyone to say that this result is of no interest (as many have) is to not understand the very essence of physics.

My deduction is either correct or wrong. The Establishment is completely adamant in asserting that it is wrong, as long as they can do the asserting in private. Like the character The Sayer of the Law in The Island of Doctor Moreau, they kept parroting that my proof violated a textbook theorem. They understood neither my proof nor the theorem. They just clung to this theorem the way a baby clings to Mama when the doctor tries to administer a shot in his bottom.

I am not violating any physical principles. But if I were, is such violating so absolutely forbidden in the Physics Establishment? You guessed it – the answer is NO. It depends on who is doing the violating. If you submit a paper saying that a top spinning in one direction weighs more than when spinning in the other direction, it probably violates more than just the principles of conservation of mass and of energy. But the paper sails through. If you say that empty space has a preferred directionality, it strains scientific credulity. But the paper sails through. Both papers were wrong. This is where theorems should have been applied appropriately, but were not.

String Theorists violate any number of accepted principles of physics, not the least of them is that there are only four known dimensions in physics. Particles that escape to unknown worlds violate the conservation principles. Yet, String Theory papers are streaming out of the old firehose, and are being published in "prestigious" journals.

Communication at speeds greater than the speed of light is today an active field of research. So are time machine and teleportation.

Hannes Alfven's discovery of Magnetohydrodynamics in the 1950s was derided by the powers that be because it violated a textbook theorem (that there can be no electric field inside an infinitely condicting liquid). Alfven was right; the powers that be were wrong. At any rate, the powers that be did not prevent Alfven from publishing his papers. They at least had this much sense/honesty. The papers were published; then criticized in public. Public faces in public places.

The point is this: Theorems etc are being violated all over the place, and new vistas are being explored. This is good. What is not good is the entitlement for violating accepted notions. That is what I mean when I say that these people today are buried so deep in their own accumulated hubris that they cannot see clearly.

This point becomes even clearer when you consider one rare individual, an Editor of New Journal of Physics, who clearly could think for himself and did not learn by rote, acted in a way that is more adult:

"In this paper the author attempts to construct a sourceless solution of Maxwell's equations representing a static magnetic field that falls off at infinity. There are well established theorems that would appear to make this impossible. If such a solution were valid, therefore, it could be interesting.

The approach of the paper is based on a view of Maxwell's equations: that there are currents that are "caused by" magnetic fields, and currents that are "sources of" magnetic fields. This is a rather nonstandard viewpoint, but is not, by itself, wrong. Using this as a background motivation the author then purports to find two solutions to Maxwell's equations for the same current, and for the same restrictions at infinity. The linear nature of Maxwell's equations would seem to rule this out. This in itself is not a proof that the paper is wrong, but rather a warning that the author must be very convincing in his demonstration of the existence of two such solutions."

When Journal of Theoretics published this proof and they were informed on it, they remained completely silent. They are confident in private, reticent in public. On looking back on my desperate attempts to publish the idea, I found that on 14 September 1999, in a letter of appeal to a number of prominent theoretical physicists (I wrote a lot of those letters), I predicted this:

“In this backdrop, of one thing I feel quite certain. If the present paper were published, none of the above experts would dare commit themselves in print as opposing it. In sum, it is a strange situation of authoritative opposing in private, and keeping silent in public.”

I was here expressing a personal conviction, but even I did not have any idea how true this would be after the publication of my paper two years later.

Separately, I have discussed the possible ramifications of the idea to theoretical physics and future technology. This paper also outlines experiments that are doable with instrumentation readily available in an Electromagnetics Laboratory, but that require a great deal of innovative thinking in their design and execution.


From time to time, the British Royal Society declares its position on issues. About the turn of the last century, they proclaimed:

“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”

This is what I was reminded of when they - under the editorship of John Pendry and presidency of Aaron Klug - issued this final verdict on my idea:

"The matter is closed."


The matter would thus have died from conscious ignoring upon the publication of the paper, except for a fluke break. A leading expert of the Establishment, Russell M. Kulsrud of Princeton University, felt personally challenged that something he had nixed earlier as an anonymous referee (in collaboration with editor Ronald C. Davidson of Princeton, another leading expert) came out anyway, and started digging further into the paper. But the more he dug, the more respectful he became about the nature of the problem (see the Kulsrud Papers). Over many months, he conducted an intense and in-depth study of my deduction. He labored hard and with intense obsession - by his own description. He found this to be one of the most fascinating problems in mathematical physics he has worked on. He then claimed to have shown that the deduction is wrong. But in spite of my repeated urging, he declined to publish his results. He did not give any reason for this. Instead, he promised me numerous times that he would send me copies of his calculations. To this day I have not seen a single line of these calculations that purportedly disprove my idea. He has shelved the matter at this stage, without reaching any closure. I asked him, in absence of any public statement from him, if I could summarize his conclusions in a paper of mine, in words acceptable to him ("personal communication"). He did not like this idea either, but he reluctantly agreed to the following language:

. . . . . . . .

Confucius say: Evidence show you right or you wrong. So you wrong.

"To this author's knowledge, the only sincere and objective attempt to examine the paper has been conducted by R. M. Kulsrud of Princeton University (Kulsrud, 2001; personal communication), a recognized authority in EM Theory. However, in spite of a detailed and lengthy study, he has been unable to reach any definitive conclusions. His current opinion, quoted here with his permission, is that neither he has been able to disprove the idea nor has this author been able to prove it."

From his description of what he has done, it appears to me that he has in fact already verified all aspects of my deduction to be correct. I have suggested this to Kulsrud. In other words, it seems possible that my deduction has already been theoretically verified by the Establishment, and that result has been set aside.

The above experience of the Establishment’s own leading expert shows – beyond any question – that as soon as that scientific curiosity which is born of imagination and intellect is brought to bear upon the paper, it is no longer seen as "dismissable" or ignorable. But this was not the case with the many reviewers, adjudicators, editors etc behind some 20 journals . What is one then to make of this lot?


Seeing as how many "newsy" journals routinely publish unresolved scientific controversies (in the Correspondence pages, for example), I tried at one point to air my story first in Physics Today and then in Nature. But both declined. Physics Today did not give any reason, and Nature was not interested. In effect, by purpose or by default, they let stand the Establishment's excommunication of a proposed scientific idea.


There were also repeated knee-jerk allegations from editors that I was not citing relevant contemporary researchers. The noble must be paid homage to, regardless of the context. Just think about the absurdity of this for a moment. I am saying that an important foundation of physics was missed 135 years ago, and that I am restoring that foundation. Now, would you criticize a person painting a new "View of Constantinople" today for not including the Orient Express or the Airport? Here's one example:

".. advances must be placed in the context of recent developments in research. There is no discussion in your manuscript of how this work relates to other current research and adequate references to the recent research literature are lacking."

"View of Constantinople"

Wait a minute! Where's the airport?!

So if you make a discovery that cannot be related to recent developments, it is no good in their books. Another brushing-off technique is to call a paper pedagogic. Mind you, my paper is a straight mathematical proof - there is not even much text in the paper. But even so:

"Your manuscript therefore is too pedagogical..."

You get the feeling that there are certain people assigned to handle papers from undesirable elements. These bouncers have some stock phrases they sprinkle to reject these papers, without understanding what the papers are about. Essentially, what you get is jiggery pokery: linguistic deception. This is the kind of activity that routinely goes on behind the scenes in this Establishment.

Characters from Jiggery Pokery

Then there was the incident of the paper (about EM Field in vacuum and a possible new particle), most appropriately submitted to Physical Review D, dealing with Particles and Fields, being transferred to Physical Review E, dealing with Statistical and Interdisciplinary Physics. What went on there in the editorial offices is beyond me. When I objected to this, they even made an effort to justify this action!

All of the above activities were officially blessed by Martin Blume, the Editor-in-Chief of the American Physical Society in his final review of the matter.

If further convincing is needed, take this editor who writes:

"As you say in the body of the manuscript, the results are not new...."

I said no such thing. Can you imagine someone claiming to advance a new idea saying it is not really new? He just made it up as a ground for rejection.

At one point I thought that I would address in the paper all the objections that have been raised to date in order to move past these. But now, addressing these became a negative against me, to wit:

"The author tries to answer all the anticipated objections. That sounds strange, as if he had already been rebuked a number of times!"

. . . . . . . .

The Rebuke

So they get you if there are points to object to, and they get you if you have answered these objections preemptively. The old one-two punch.

One journal told me repeatedly that referees contacted did not want to review my paper. It is as though the very mention of my name generated some kind of revulsion. Eventually an editor had to "call in a personal favor" to get somebody to look at it. That somebody did not write a report, but simply gave the editor some oral comments. I do not know what these comments are, but the paper was rejected on this basis.

. . . .. . . .

In an urgent meeting, Physicist describes Time Machine ports-of-call to Editors

Not so long ago, a horrendously mathematical paper from the Establishment on Time Machine was published on a super urgent basis (urgent as in “All aboard”?). When the media started a feeding frenzy, the author himself said something to the effect that it was a whimsy on his part. But with my paper dealing with possibly a missing chunk of the foundation of physics, I am told: There’s no urgency to publish this; this paper has no priority over many other papers we have; we won’t publish it but we are not making any scientific judgment; etc. It is as though they are busy adding an ornate eleventh story glass-enclosed greenhouse to their home, and you are bothering them with some nuisance about the house being possibly on an earthquake fault.

But to lighten things up a little, consider this gem: We here are dealing with electromagnetic phenomena in vacuum – involving some of the deepest abstract ideation in theoretical physics that consumed the likes of James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein. So, to whom does the British Royal Society send this matter for final arbitration? Why, of course, it is the theoretical chemist John S. Rowlinson! And naturally, he proceeds to act on it!


So the best combative efforts of the best minds in the best house the Establishmen can bring to bear on the issue - taking all the time in the world, and receiving every cooperation from me - have failed to reach a publishable conclusion. Can there be a better justification to any learned community for publishing a proposed discovery for public debate? But this learned community would nevertheless not let my idea see the light of day. So I continue to press on. Then their backers in the Government funding agency cook up a bureaucratic cover story for this scientific inability on their part: It is not good enough to publish in Journal of Theoretics. Publish in one of our "appropriate" journals, and we will deign to evaluate your idea. (These are the journals they have kept me out of).

Beautiful Mind

But the medium is not the only gatekeeping criterion here. Read on, and you will see that the entitlement of the author also determines whether or not they will look at a proposed scientific discovery. It is as though they are saying to the world: Behold the beauty of our mind that thirsts to drink from the fount of knowledge! But not so fast. This ambrosia must be served up to us in a regulation chalice. And that chalice must be borne up to us only by freshly-bathed choirboys.

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The Quest for Knowledge

When once I worked as an Antenna Engineer I was introduced to something called Military Specification (MilSpec). Every little thing that went into a large scale system you designed had to meet painstakingly detailed requirements set out in the dreariest of documents. MilSpec has a very good purpose when applied as intended.


Diogenes of Sinope is said to have lived in a discarded bathtub out in the open. One day, he was lying there basking in sunlight when Alexander the Great came visiting, and stood majestically over him. “What may Alexander the Great do for Diogenes?”, asked the august visitor. “Stand a little out of my sun”, said Diogenes.

"Stand a little out of my sun."

Theoretical physicists are very much visible and vocal in the mass media today, including PBS Television. You get the feeling that they are embarked upon some magnificent quest, and in that they are as passionate as the medieval Knights, as agonized as Eastern mystics, and as obsessed as Arctic explorers. You read physics essays with stilted philosophizing, quoting Spinoza and such.

"Noli Me Tangere"

There is also a deifying aspect to it, with one individual being declared as possessing the Mind of God. One has seen the Face of God. One has discovered the Thumbprint of God. There is of course the God Particle. And so on.

The God Particle

You get the feeling that at the rate they are staking their claim, no attribute or body part of God will be left for people in other disciplines. In the midst of this celebrity-minded hoopla, I thought I saw a little opportunity for me to catch some sun.

Mind of God

I felt that for any theoretical physicist who has truly taken the search for some primeval knowledge deep into the deep of his psyche, my idea would have resonated the way the drumbeat of wild Africa might resonate with a caged silverback born in a western zoo. In the event, I was wrong. My attempts to communicate with numerous leaders of the Theoretical Physics Establishment (including "Mind of God" and "Spinoza") have also met with complete silence, except one courteous response which was perhaps revealing of the reason for this silence. Response from Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University: "At present there is no facility in this department to review material from the public."

This called to mind my grandfather. When I was a child he used to find interesting ways to teach interesting things. One day he said that in the English language (then a foreign language to me) there are words that sound the same but mean different things. He exemplified: What right has a wheelwright to write about the rites of the church?


I do not wish to create the impression that I am against popularization of science. Quite the contrary. I am all for it, for all the good reasons: From the noble purpose of telling the story of the progress of mankind to the practical purpose of creating political support for funding. But when it comes to physics today, we have to distinguish between popularization of science and adoration of scientists.

What other scientific discipline do you know that puts up their luminaries and before you know it, they are talking of God? It almost seems that you can approach God far more easily through physics luminaries than through your pastor. What other discipline shows you one of their number in a bucolic setting, sitting pensively on a rock by a singing rivulet, ideating with his dreamy eyes gazing at nothing in particular at twelve o’clock high? Are they showing you perhaps the divine communing? Is this where it all happens? What other discipline tells you quaint little "humanizing" tales about their betting among each other on such things as the fate of the Universe? You see, them gods also play!

You get the feeling that the true discovers are God’s very own people. The non-chosen ones would do well to say "Lord I am not worthy" and give up.

Again, I could easily accept all these as a particular harmless style the physicists have developed of late. The concept of a celebrity physicist is not a bad thing in itself. It may even materially benefit physics. But when this community finds all the time in the world, all the energy and the resources and the enthusiasm to engage in this hero-making enterprise, but does not find a little time to address non-glamorous bread-and-butter issues raised from ignoble quarters, you have to ask: What are these people really about?

This point becomes much clearer with a hypothetical example: Suppose that, all else remaining the same, I am able to bypass the physics community and manipulate some powerful politicians or talk show hosts to promote my ideas to the nation as being great physics. What do you think will happen? The celebrity leaders and the talking heads and their running dogs in the physics media will immediately jump in with both their feet, and most authoritatively proclaim me wrong. They will say that the politicians or talk show hosts are exceeding their bounds, etc. Now, what is the difference between this situation, and the obscure place that I am in today where they can ignore me with impunity? The only difference is the limelight.

Poor Pons and Fleischmann! As long as they were doing their thing in quiet obscurity, everything was fine and dandy. But the moment they attracted politicians and talk show hosts, the entire Physics Establishment jumped in on "the action."

Chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann might have fared better if they did not crave the limelight reserved for the Physics Establishment .....Not everyone is entitled to the Nectar of the Gods.

It is all about limelight today.


My correspondence with Government agencies is a continuation of the story, showing how the Abbey gates are guarded against unauthorized entry of the public, by the bureaucratic apparatus that sustains the Abbey with money from the public. The Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Energy, reviewed the entire matter and told me that they agree with the Establishment in feeling that my work is "not a high priority for discussion or publication".

When one advances a revolutionary new idea that contravenes accepted principles, it is incumbent on him to present a proof that withstands close expert scrutiny. Evidence now shows that mine did. After that, an intellectually honest learned community would be moved to publish it. The Physics Establishment was not. But Journal of Theoretics was. After that at least, it was incumbent on this Establishment to acknowledge, and come to terms with the idea in public. They did neither. After that, since the idea touches on public-funded programs, it was incumbent on the funding agency to foster a debate. It did not. After that, it was incumbent on the funding agency's oversight authority to intervene. It did not. After that, it was incumbent on people responsible for scientific policy-making to intervene. They did not. The process failed at all levels.

In the end, everyone entrusted to see to progress of science worked, or remained silent, to stifle the very process that leads to progress. The very people who have chosen a life of seeking new knowledge engaged in an aberrant "ideocidal" conduct. And to think that all that needed to happen, or needs to happen, anywhere along the line, any time, to put this matter to bed is for one person to say in public in a signed commentary what they all have been asserting with such authoritative force in private!


As early as 1978, I showed that Magnetohydrodynamics is not a phenomenon confined to conducting fluids, but applied to any fluid whatsoever. Yet, I have not seen a single acknowledgement in the literature to date of this greater truth. This learned community continues to teach, practice and promulgate their lesser truth. The learned community is reluctant to learn.

In a 1992 paper I discussed vacuum electromagnetic interaction – defying the very core of the belief system of the physics community to date. Subsequently, I deduced a new mode of radio communication based on this (The "companion wave"). The publications of both papers were vehemently opposed. After publication ... what else? Complete silence. Even after experimental evidence emerged, lending credence to these ideas.

And my 1996 manuscript showing that magnetic field in empty space is a matterless mass received reactions from reviewers that ranged from “This is absurd” to “This is well known”. Since then, I have seen a great deal of lofty punditry and pontification on matterless mass – without any acknowledgement of my published work, even after some of the pundits were specifically reminded of the paper.

All of the above papers were published in the Establishment’s standard, fully peer-reviewed journals. None has been refuted to date. So much for their professed view - a ruse really - that they evaluate fundamental results if they are published in their "appropriate" journals. Anyone with the necessary intellectual wherewithal would have been able to see these as proposed discoveries in the truest sense of the term. But none of them merited a single mention anywhere. Where is scientific curiosity? That is reserved only for the fashionable research of the time.


For those wheelwrights who ultimately find an alternative means of expression like Journal of Theoretics and feel that you have prevailed, there is a disconcerting thought I must reluctantly offer. Learning of my experiences in this matter, a well-known Establishment insider who is especially familiar with the politics of publications, peer review, history of success or failure of ideas etc, had this comment to offer:

"The only consolation is that science is self-correcting and if you are right, later generations will know it. But accept that you will not get any credit! The sociologists of science point out that effects, laws, etc are never named for the first person to discover them, and that there are predictable, rational reasons for this."

This should give you pause. It is indeed likely that a good new idea you manage to publish without the Establishment's blessings will be ignored; later, the same idea will resurface - slightly repackaged perhaps - as a "discovery" by an anointed member of the Establishment, which will then place their imprimatur upon it. They seem to like to reserve the credit for new ideas for their own. This actually nearly happened to me with my published idea of lowering fusion energy barrier utilizing nonspherical nuclear charge distribution. A few years after this was published and completely ignored by the Establishment, a famed physicist floated the idea as his own - with much media fanfare as I recall. When I quietly sent him a reprint, the entire matter quietly went away. I heard nothing from this physicist and the media said nothing more. Evidently, the idea was worthy of great fanfare had it come from an anointed member of the Establishment.

[NOTE ADDED ON 1 JUNE 2005: In April 2005 UCLA physicists reported that they produced ‘desktop fusion’. The media report of this was quick to point out that even though Pons and Fleischmann claimed to do the same earlier, they used a wrong technique and the UCLA scientists used a right technique. The obvious conclusion the public is guided to draw is that UCLA scientists are the pioneers of ‘desktop fusion'. However, the reader will recall that the intense public ridicule Pons and Fleischmann received was not for their technique. The laughing matter for the public then was the very idea of ‘desktop fusion’. So, the physics establishment ridiculed them for the same general idea for which they now laud their colleagues. What happened to the notion of absurdity of desktop fusion? Had the establishment criticised Pons and Fleischmann then only for their technique, these two researchers might have far less tragic lives today. Who will answer for destroying two lives for proposing a scientific direction which turns out to have been both imaginative and worthwhile? This is only one example of how credit is usurped from powerless outsiders and hung on powerful insiders. They got a whole bag of tricks to do this. Such clever ruses are obviously implemented with the aid of the media. In the present instance, the ruse works like this: Identify a great new idea from an outsider. Ignore it, or ridicule it if it has gained public prominence. Wait a reasonable length of time. When the idea has receded into oblivion and its proponents have either been “neutralized” or have died, glom the idea. Come at it from a completely different angle. Declare a “new” discovery, and berate the original people at the same time.]

In Table 2 I have therefore prepared a partial watch list of the "new" discoveries that may emerge from within the Establishment.




1. Any suggestions of expanding the foundation of classical physics.
2. Any suggestions that the concept of magnetic field should be reexamined.
3. Any suggestions that EM energy can propagate in free space in modes other than electromagnetic waves, and at variable speeds.
4. Any suggestions of particles made entirely of magnetostatic field.
5. Any linkages of dark matter and dark energy to magnetic field.
6. Any linkages of empty space to magnetic field.
7. Any linkage of "strings" to magnetic field.
8. Any suggestions that magnetic field is the ultimate constituent of the universe.
9. Any suggestions that photon has mass and structure.
10. Any suggestions that photons and particles are different expressions of the same underlying physical entity.
11. Any suggestions of TransMaxwellian electromagnetic phenomena.
12. Any suggestions of TransEinsteinian consideration of the mass-energy relation.
13. Any suggestions that quantum phenomena are undertstandable on the basis of expanded classical physics.


So what do you laity do under the above circumstances? Do as I do. Take a page from the Establishment and invoke God! Take some advice from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita:

You are entitled to do your labor. You have no entitlement to its fruits.

In this web site, I am simply continuing my labors.

Sic transit gloria Mundi

Or take this long view from the Bible:

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun? One generation passeth away, another generation cometh: But the earth abideth forever. The sun also ariseth.
          Ecclesiastes 1:2-5

The glorious Age of the Internet is making things a little uncomfortable for the Physics Establishment. In late 1990s, the Journal of Theoretics, an online scientific journal, came into the physics scene. Its editor is Dr. James P. Siepmann, MD, who – like Sir Francis Crick – is an old-fashioned scientific intellectual who does not recognize boundaries between scientific disciplines. (Crick’s physics background helped him solve one of the greatest problems in biology). Dr. Siepmann is also a Mensa, and therefore it is a little difficult for the Establishment to hang the label of crackpot on him. He does not believe that scientific ideas should be kept out of literature unless they have been cast into some Establishment-ordained strictures. Many, including myself, have availed of this journal to record ideas that could not otherwise be placed on record. The Establishment – having tried and failed to disprove my work scientifically - has derided it for being published in this journal. The truth is this: A journal such as this gets the Physics Establishment’s goat. They have no control over it. Great new ideas may be staked out here, without following their rules of the game, and outside of their control – and thus deprive the Establishment physicists of the credit when and if they arrive there in their own plodding way. The Journal of Theoretics upsets the cozy system they have set up – it yanks their chain. So they ignore its presence. As far as I can tell, articles published in this journal are not referenced in standard physics journals. A learned community that professes that openmindedness is its greatest asset is in fact one that is the most closedminded. When you question them about this, they will give you all kinds of wordy nonsense about the need to preserve the quality of science, need for compliance with bureaucratic processes they have set up, etc. Intellectual exploration with an AAA road map – that is what this bunch is engaged in.

Dr. Siepmann, Take a bow!

Sadly, Journal of Theoretics will cease publication at the end of 2004 – due to various practical reasons. For myself, I say: Dr. Siepmann, Take a bow!



The Overt Crackpot and the Covert Crackpot

There is in existence an Establishment manual, a 35-fold criterion, to identify crackpots in physics. There is also a seven-fold criterion for identifying bogus science. Carl Sagan, in his book Demon-haunted World agitates on how science is being harmed by outsiders. In the midst of such loud and self-righteous clamor, the truth gets buried deep. Just stop and think. Let us say in this context that a crackpot is someone whose pursuit harms the progress of science. I only speak here of physics. Who does far and away the greatest harm to the progress of physics today? It is the Physics Establishment itself. They do this systematically through authoritative suppression, deliberate ignoring, favoring Establishment fops and dandies over non-Establishment toilers, and by controlling government funding and the science media. They are the covert crackpots. Know them for what they are. None from their midst will tell you this. So take it from me.

Those who are labeled crackpots today – the overt crackpots - are at least honest: They pursue new ideas they think are correct. Their scientific passion is genuine. They may pursue paths that are not traditional or “professional”. They may try to do physics with their gut or their passion rather than with equations. In the end, they may prove wrong, even amusingly wrong. But being proved wrong is an accepted outcome of the standard scientific process. And there is nothing absolute that says that new results must be arrived at through some Establishment-ordained path. So, overt crackpots may, at worst, amuse you. Also, I do not know of any scientific fraud being associated with any claims by overt crackpots. This is not true for the Establishment. The covert crackpots should cause you grave concern.

There is a second aspect to this: A scientific idea may be labeled crackpot when pursued by an outsider, but may become an interesting notion, a curious development, a new way of thinking etc et al when pursued by an insider. Think of your own examples. And don’t forget the self-congratulations. The overt crackpots are said to pretentiously tie their work in with the likes of Einstein. Laughable! But when the Establishment bigwigs are ascribed various godly attributes, or described as “The Successor to Einstein”, this is of course most heartwarming. Don’t forget the chest-pounding either. Overt crackpots trying in vain to draw attention to their work in various obscure venues are fodder for amusement. But the Establishment nabobs getting on PBS television and making claims to have not only understood this Universe but to have discovered a few others to boot, is educational TV at its best.

An overt crackpot says he got a scientific idea while dreaming!
Hee hee.... Ha ha...Ho ho... (Good for a belly laugh).

The String Theorists suggest that they are Time Travelers from the future, landed in our time portal with a bit of intimation of immortality.
Well... gee...hum...whaddya know...Like, wow!

An overt crackpot says that his critics will be proved wrong! Well excuuuse me while I laugh my sides off.

A String Theorist declares on PBS TV that his critics will be proved wrong. What a spirit-lifting example of supreme scientic confidence!

There is a third aspect to this: When an insider pursues such an "interesting notion", it is all very fine. They will leave you alone and even publish you - even if they are skeptical. But you must leave it there. God help you if you have sought excessive media attention and thus exposed their indulgence of you! Poor Pons and Fleischmann!

You might find it an interesting exrecise to apply the Establishment's criteria for crackpotism and bogus science to the Establishment itself. I leave this as an exercise for you, with only one example. One criterion for bogus science is that the discoverer runs to the media before he runs to a scientific forum. That is exactly what Cambridge University's Stephen Hawking did in July of 2004.

An overt crackpot generally is a loner. But covert "crackpotism" is usually collective enterprise: It has a community of proponents, a community of promoters, and even a community of protectors. String Theory – seen as the grand idea of physics that it is being promoted as – is a prime, happening example of covert crackpotism. Fusion Energy research is another example. However, one can argue if these are crackpotism, or very sophisticated scam artistry. I am not sure. Considering the public funds they are guzzling, one thing can be said: Dollar for dollar, there is probably more science at the Ghost Research Society:

The Ghost Research Society

But then, the Ghost Research Society probably does not use taxpayers' money.

You could take all the criteria about crackpotism and bogus science that the Establishment has set up, and find a simple subtext to them. It is as though the covert crackpots are saying to the overt crackpots:

Watch us eat cake. But don't you dare eat it yourself!

Marie Antoinette would be proud of this bunch.

More than any other scientific community, the Physics Community is obsessed with crackpots. This is probably because they see in the overt crackpots a reflection of them - a kind of alter ego.

Lastly, anytime you hear someone being labeled a crackpot in physics, remember that such labeling could come about equally well by one of two reasons:

1. He is truly a crackpot;

2. He is surrounded by cattle.


Mathematics is a most wonderful, awe-inspiring subject. Its own inherent beauty is never in question. Separately, the same is true for physics. But the combination of the two does not necessarily create more beauty. For most physics applications, mathematics is a tool, a technique. History of physics shows that great good has come from employing this tool properly. Unfortunately, this also creates the opportunity of abusing the awe-inspiring aspect. If you stand in awe of mathematics as most of us do, a physicist can engage in mathematical prestidigitation and make you think he has achieved something great. In reality, he may have created an intellectual version of a Rube Goldberg Machine. Or just plain nonsense.


The Russian physics journals are a good example of horrendous mathematics in pursuit of physics. Most of these papers get published, and then buried deep in the archives, never again seeing the light of day. Horrendous mathematics was also used recently to prove that empty space has a preferred directionality. Nonsense, of course. Cosmology provides a fertile ground for this type of activity, the way vast expanses of unwatched rice fields provide a fertile ground for crop circle artists.

The physicist Hannes Alfven had a phenomenal ability to intuit the non-obvious. Using the simplest of mathematics, he arrived at profound results of physics – results that most considered unbelievable. Detailed mathematical treatment by others later confirmed these results ("negative diffusion", for example), as did observations. This is an example of mathematics in faithful service of physics.

The upshot of all this is that a result of physics should not given any credence simply because it was the endpoint of pages of mathematical equations and their manipulations. Do not be intimidated by these. There is a simple way to judge what is going on without having any knowledge of mathematics. The question to ask is this: Does the result explain existing real life phenomena or predict testable real life phenomena, starting from the basic, known laws of physics? A corollary to this is: If not, does the result propose a testable new law of physics?

If the answer to both is No, don’t waste you time paying attention to such enterprises. They are a sublime form of covert crackpotism.


One of these is physics?

Witness today’s oft-heard refrain that the String Theory makes great physics sense because of its inherent “mathematical beauty”. This is a good sound bite –campaign style. It captivates the masses, watching the PBS Television. But what does this statement really mean? There are any number of examples in physics where you do pages of mathematical calculations and end up with a mathematical expression or equation(s) that tell you things about the physical world. These things may be things that you already know to be true, or things that are predicted and may later prove to be true. This is mathematical beauty in physics. If things are predicted and prove to be wrong, there may still be mathematical beauty – but it means nothing for physics. And mathematical beauty means even less for physics when the calculations do not generate any testable predictions – which is the case with the String Theory. So you can see that the sound bite is exactly that – nothing more.

Today’s mathematical trans-physicist brings to my mind the story of the Swami and the Ferryman I heard in childhood. This Swami of great learning and wisdom and repute, well-versed in the scriptures and philosophies, once appeared at the river landing and bade a ferryman take him across in a little dinghy. The illiterate Ferryman felt greatly honored to be of service to the great learned man. As they were underway, the Swami deigned to speak. He asked the Ferryman: O Ferryman, have you read the Rig Veda? The Ferryman let on as how he did not read novels. The Swami said: O Ferryman, 25% of your life is to no avail. The Ferryman humbly accepted that. A while later, the Swami said: O Ferryman, what is your view of Siddhartha Gautama? The Ferryman said he did not know anyone by that name. The Swami assessed: O Ferryman, 50% of your life is to no avail. The Ferryman became most despondent. Then the Swami asked again: What is the essence of asceticism? The Ferryman was now completely stumped, and could not even respond. The Swami declared: O Ferryman, 75% of your life is to no avail. At this time, a storm that was slowly gathering became a gale force wind, and knocked the dinghy over. As the Ferryman began to swim ashore, he asked the Swami: O Holy Man, can you swim? The Swami said he could not. So the Ferryman said,without sarcasm and with genuine concern, but wanting to stay with the same vein of language: O Holy Man, 100% of your life is to no avail.

But let me illustrate with a concrete example what this “mathematical beauty” business is all about. As I mentioned before, starting in the late seventies, I published a series of papers showing that the theory of Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) was only half the story, that there was a full complement to this (“Magnetohydroelectrics” or MHE) that had been overlooked. This included the derivation of a new wave (MHE wave) that is the counterpart of the MHD wave. This work added a major missing portion to the foundation of Electromagnetic Theory. I also derived an expression for wave velocity that is completely generalized, and in proper limit, reduces to all the known wave behaviors as well as the new wave behavior. What can be greater mathematical beauty in physics, especially hardcore physics (as distinct from the swami-esque esoterica)? All this was published in mainstream refereed journals. In the quarter century that has elapsed since, I have not seen a single citation to this work anywhere. And this lot gets on PBS TV and tells you about mathematical beauty?! And if one is so titillated by the mathematical beauty as to be almost ready to buy the whole package, they have other things to throw at him. The rhapsody of supersymmetry will start to play! Still not quite there? He will next hear the tintinnabulation of mathematical elegance. It is as though, lacking proper grounds, all these cosmetic attributes by themselves will assure good physics. How can so much beauty and grace go to waste, they ask. What they are doing here is promoting some physics celebrity with the artifice of mathematical beauty, the way some pitchmen on late night infomercials sell you stuff in jars with the promise of facial beauty. (How much will you pay for this? Wait a minute, don’t answer yet. We will throw in a full set of kitchen knives for free…).

If you stubbornly continue to be a holdout, they have the ultimate weapon (As in If you call within next 10 minutes, we will throw in a free Pedicure Set). What is this ultimate weapon? I will tell you – but hold on to your seats now. If you are faint of heart, do not read any further. This is the ultimate weapon: String Theory is a happening of the future that, through a beneficial time warp, has accidentally stepped through our time portal and landed in our time. This is no joke! I am perfectly serious. This is what they say. They are in fact saying in a veiled way that the String Theorists are time travelers from future. It is as though they are Avatars who are bringing you intimations of immortality. Accept them on faith!

Lessons of history are also invoked to support String Theory. This statement has the force of authority behind it, considering that the Guru of String Theory was a History major, before he decided to switch to Physics.

A computer-generated Beauty Queen. Beauty, yes. Human, no.
Like some mathematics-generated Universe. Beauty, yes. Physics, no.

So the next time someone tells you that something makes great sense in physics because it has mathematical beauty, send him a copy of the above picture. He will apreciate it.

And finally, the irony of ironies! The central debate with regard to my paper is a purely mathematical one. It is also very precisely defined. It is a curious mathematical problem waiting for an answer (other than the one I have given, which the Establishment does not accept). So one has to wonder why just a little bit of all this mathematical beauty and grace and elegance and whatnot of all the legions of exalted mathematical physicists is not being brought to bare on this question – if just for the challenge of it. May be I should throw in a free set of stainless steel paring knives?


As my example makes it clear, if you have somehow managed to properly document an idea in physics – especially something grandiose befitting the Anointed Ones, and if you are a nobody, the idea may go completely unheeded for years and decades. If you draw attention to this and if anyone deigns to respond, you will hear all kinds of homilies about how history teaches us that ideas take a long time to take hold. They will even give you poignant examples from history (Watch out if they mention Giordano Bruno!). You are told to surrender to this mysterious guiding power about which no mortal can do anything.

A more mealy-mouthed endeavor is hard to imagine.

Just look around you today. Take the longest time-scale branch of physics: cosmology. How long does it take from the time an Exalted One has cast some pearls of wisdom, to the time they adorn the New York Times and the Evening News? Think more the speed of modern publicity machines than the speed of history. The Exalted One begins to receive all kinds of accolades from his peer. He struts like a peacock on the stage in scientific meetings. For these Exalted Ones, that mysterious force of history is somehow suspended.

It takes time to for continents to drift apart. It takes time for a species to evolve. It does not take time to hash out a scientific idea. History, after all, is a chronicle of human doings. Take any example of good scientific ideas that were ostracized or ignored for a long time, and you will find definite reasons for this, to do with failings of those whose place it was to competently evaluate the idea. Therefore, for today’s Physics Establishment to do nothing about an idea and then to point to history as the operating force is a very clever ruse.

Most ostracized people, when hit with great profundities such as lessons of history, curl up and go back to their shell. They convince themselves that they were wrong in their expectation. They do not think further and realized that they are being duped in a royal way.

This is an important point. Physicists are the cleverest grouping of human beings. When they suppress you, they do it with great art and sophistry. It is all most reasonable and most fair what they do! You do not know what hit you. The world knows even less.

Conversely, when they choose to promote someone, they shift to different lessons of history. They make comparisons to the great historical men of science, and to great historical revolutions of science. They even try to use such comparisons as substitute for, or to bolster, scientific justification. They make a list of great historical men and their accomplishments, and then continue that list – seamlessly – with the names of today’s Exalted Ones and their accomplishments. Can you imagine anything more convincing?

If you can see through all this, then you will find great comedy hidden here. Elsewher in this web site, I have borrowed from their bag of tricks!


Despite all the hoopla in the mass media, there is actually not much going on in physics today except inanities and rehashing of stale ideas and mathematical prestidigitation - basically, more of the same. This is the sign of a learned community that has run out of steam.

People crowd in cosmology because that is where one has the ability to do pretty much anything. You are not taxed much in the "conceiving new idea" department. If you have an oven, the variety of breads you can bake is infinite (Mejdool date and Kalamata olive bread, for example; Does not take great imagination to come up with great exotica.). And if you have the media lined up to peddle your wares, well, you are "in business". Many biologists, late in their career, become interested in the problem of origin of life. It is generally understood that this is something of a noble spiritual quest – whether honoring or defying some Divine Creator. In physics, however, the similar philosophical quest in cosmology has achieved a central place – even the main stage. This is the Rolex-Mercedes set of the physics community.

What is frightening about this situation is that these people are occupying the central workspace of physics, and elbowing out the real work.

The societal benefits that you see today from physics – the wonder of space exploration, the miracle of medical physics, the revolution in communication – these are all thanks largely to fine engineers. The underlying physics is from a bygone era.

There is some "cool" futuristic stuff going on (Time Machines, Teleporters, Nanotechnlogy, Molecular computers……) – you will find them pop up on the Evening News from time to time. There may even be an occasional book from Michael Crichton. That’s probably the size of it. The quantum lemon has been squeezed to bitterness. Fusion energy? Let us not go there!

Atom-smashing today is very big business. It employs thousands upon thousands of people. The object is to get at the ultimate building block of matter. All very fine: Man’s noble curiosity about his ultimate makeup. They are trying to test various theories. And if the theories do not prove correct, they may find something unexpectedly new anyway. So how can you go wrong with such a project? For this purpose, they have been building bigger and bigger machines: One machine straddles national boundaries. (The bigger you build, the harder it is to shut the project down – as we learned from Waxahatchie). But I ask you: Why cannot the tiniest fraction of this kind of regimented manpower and fierce brainpower be devoted to questions properly raised about the very foundational science at which this gigantic program aims? Why is it that they jump on the hokey String Theory bandwagon with both feet, but are not interested in the legitimate bread-and-butter questions that concern them very directly? Is this really about science? Or is all this talk of the soaring of human spirit covering something most down-to-earth?

On the Internet you will find deceptive promotion of certain present-day individuals as great exponents of physics. This site, for example, makes a chronology of theoretical physics development starting with the great masters of the early twentieth century. Then - in exactly the same vein and same format - it appends near the end these individuals and their "discoveries". This is a transparent attempt to glorify hokey science by hitching it to true greatness.

When a very old tree looks sick, and you cannot find any obvious reasons, you have to tend to the roots. You have to carefully dig around it, test the soil, replace it with new soil, etc. Physics today is such a tree. But its leaders cannot see that it is sick. They look at the rot and think the tree is flowering. That is the frightening thing. They are not looking at the foundation. They cannot see that the foundation is the frontier.

In recent times (2003/2004) the Physics Establishment has virulently assailed John Marburger, Science Advisor to President Bush, for subverting the course of science to political ends. In this effort they may be justified. It may not be that Marburger is trying to "harm science" of his own initiative. He may just be trying to please the Boss Man. Either way, it is a serious issue. But there is another side to this issue for physics that nobody is telling you.

OK, Marburger is trying to stifle progress in physics (among other disciplines). But what progress?! Some guy has discovered after 30 years of research that a little bit of stuff leaks out of black holes after all – that progress? Some guy has calculated the heck out of Time Machine – that progress? The make-believe science of String Theory is copiously spawning discoverers – that progress? Fusion Energy researchers have discovered at long last the ultimate truth that they need more money – that progress?

What progress in physics is Marburger stifling? There are clear areas in medical science, for example, where progress is at stake. But the Physics Establishment is trying to get a free ride on their back, without anybody noticing. There is no progress in physics today to stifle. Physics is in doldrums. Assailing Marburger is not going to get us out of this morass.

And if the basis of the criticism is diverting the course of scientific progress, who is doing it? Marburger or the Establishment itself?

There is only one path to progress - the path which I have identified. It starts by recognizing: The foundation is the frontier. We have to go back to the roots, tend to them - so that the next spurt of growth will bring us the twenty-first century revolution in physics.


What is the moral of this story? It is for each reader to come to his/her own conclusions. I do have a few personal observations to make. I do not think I am in a unique situation, but that I am perhaps unique in waging the far-flung and unrelenting battle. I feel that this Establishment has been given every opportunity - and then some more - to act in the manner of a wise learned community. It has been tested as to its scientific, intellectual, imaginative and ethical qualities. It has been found wanting in every respect. This comment stands whether or not my result stands in the end. It is as though, past the Age of Enlightenment, we are living here in an Age of Fakery. Perhaps the scandals erupting lately from the very core of the Physics Establishment about possible faked "discoveries" and such are also symptomatic of this declivity I perceive.

Let’s look at it another way. If I had the scientific responsibility for a R&D project (as I often did), and if someone criticized some part of it, I would lose much sleep (literally) before I sorted the issue out. If it turned out that I was wrong, I would very quickly change my position. Why? Because I know that in the end there would be some kind of a real-life product that would either work or not work. Everyone, not just the experts, would see if I did my job properly. The layman would judge how I did my physics. This is called professional accountability. The Physics Establishment is unconcerned about my proposed discovery (which would throw a spanner in the works for them) because the above is not true with most physicists, especially the academic types. This pampered lot never faces true accountability. They get their grants, publish their papers, and feel important in their make-believe world. Look at the Fusion Research Program. Generation after generation passes through it, serving out entire careers, never having to answer what the taxpayer is getting for their money. There are never any clear persons to hold accountable - they always present a moving target. Similarly, look at the idolatry surrounding String Theory which, high mathematics though it may be, may yet be a bogus science. What is the accountability here and who assumes it? So these people do not know what individual or collective accountability in one's profession is. I am not saying that this is necessarily bad, and I do not object to public funding of research in philosophy, for example. But this the reason why they (the physicists) do not know what sense of duty to their profession is, especially in a matter that is not likely to be in public view, or that they can keep from being in public view.


[NO PICTURE!!! The hugely pretentious, gaudy poster for a conference called “STRING THEORY AT THE MILLENNIUM” used to be called here. That link has now been deactivated. A great loss to the world of unintended comedy. Just imagine an old-fashioned, giant multicolor poster advertising a swashbuckler motion picture]

Give me an S, give me a T, give me an R, give me an I, give me an N, give me a G
Add the profundity of the word "millennium" to any fashionable nonsense, and you've got a winner! ("Fashionable nonsense" is coinage of the Physics Establishment to assail others)

This, however, is only part of the reason for the Establishment's present conduct. In my view, another reason is the lack the necessary scientific, intellectual and imaginative faculties to come to term with this issue. They are not refuting the paper in public for fear of being proved wrong. If the result is correct, then it means that in the realm of ideation one has to delve deeper than the strata explored by Maxwell and Einstein. It is one thing to set up some cosmological scenario (say) with a black hole here, a wormhole there and an exploding star in the distance, calculate the heck out of it, and then invite the public to behold your beautiful mind. It is one thing to come up with annual new models of the Time Machine or the Teleporter. This is what many of today's noisy and visible theoretical physicists are doing. This is very effective in getting you a few column-inches of the printed media - and who knows - may be even the broadcast media. It is another thing entirely to delve past the deepest foundations of physics. This I did. What we have here may be a simple logical fallacy: Those who are mere Sayers of the Law are sitting in judgment of a proposed new law. When that happens, naturally, science begins to move backward.

You might liken many of today’s noisy and visible theoretical physicists to a village pastor who, not being quite up on the scriptures, chooses to preach in high Latin. And when he forgets even his Benedictus benedicatur…, no problem. He confidently continues: ...status quo vadis ipso facto habeas corpus jacta alea est semper fidelis rara avis...obesa cantavit Amen!. No one in the pews is any wiser. Of course the pastor’s peer know exactly what is going on. But they are saying nothing.

. . . . . . 

The 6 1/2 Pillars of Wisdom

The book Intellectual Impostures could more aptly be written about the Physics Establishment. But it would take an author cleverer than them. Absent that, one can simply conclude that the elevated house of wisdom today's Establishment lives in is lacking a solidity of foundation - to the tune of half a pillar.

. . . . . . . . .

POSTED: 8 July 2002 LAST UPDATE: 1 January 2006

Be sure to visit also the following:
The UniverseFraud: