*Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?*

**by Gerard t' Hooft**

I was attracted to Nigel Cook's statement on Peter Woits blog entitled, "Panel Discussion Video" by the quote of his taken here below. What immediately struck my mind, was the Bekenstein Bound and how "temperature" would have been seen from that perspective.

**Bekenstein Bound**:

Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case.

Lee Smolin post given at Peter Woit's site was a ressurrection of "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity", and I like the fact that he wants cohesion amongst physicists and theoriticians alike. But if stauchly held to any position, then you have divisive comment about the ways in which to approach things. It can't be helped. But asking for more clarity this might be a good thing, and a approach by Lubos to qualify the string theorist position.

**Lubos Motl**:

The holographic conjecture, based on the Bekenstein's bounds and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the black hole,has been first proposed by Gerard 't Hooft and discussed in more detail by Lenny Susskind:

But before consider Nigel's comment, I wanted to quote something from Lee Smolin.

Consider any physical system, made of anything at all- let us call it, The Thing. We require only that The Thing can be enclosed within a finite boundary, which we shall call the Screen(Figure39). We would like to know as much as possible about The Thing. But we cannot touch it directly-we are restrictied to making measurements of it on The Screen. We may send any kind of radiation we like through The Screen, and record what ever changes result The Screen. The Bekenstein bound says that there is a general limit to how many yes/no questions we can answer about The Thing by making observations through The Screen that surrounds it. The number must be less then one quarter the area of The Screen, in Planck units. What if we ask more questions? The principle tells us that either of two things must happen. Either the area of the screen will increase, as a result of doing an experiment that ask questions beyond the limit; or the experiments we do that go beyond the limit will erase or invalidate, the answers to some of the previous questions. At no time can we know more about The thing than the limit, imposed by the area of the Screen.

*Page 171 and 172*0f,

**Three Roads to Quantum Gravity**by Lee Smolin

**Nigel Cook**:

'Caloric’, fluid heat theory, eventually gave way to two separate mechanisms,kinetic theory and radiation. This was after Prevost in 1792 suggested constant temperature is a dynamic system, with emission in equilibrium with the reception of energy.

Yet I understand this call for bringing a string theorist into the fold of Lee's, but I would remind him, that such cosmological approaches are well on their way with the course ISCAP set for themselves and how comsological realization, are still important features that string theory would like to get a hold of.

**Juan Maldacena**:

The strings move in a five-dimensional curved space-time with a boundary. The boundary corresponds to the usual four dimensions, and the fifth dimension describes the motion away from this boundary into the interior of the curved space-time. In this five-dimensional space-time, there is a strong gravitational field pulling objects away from the boundary, and as a result time flows more slowly far away from the boundary than close to it. This also implies that an object that has a fixed proper size in the interior can appear to have a different size when viewed from the boundary (Fig. 1). Strings existing in the five-dimensional space-time can even look point-like when they are close to the boundary. Polchinski and Strassler1 show that when an energetic four-dimensional particle (such as an electron) is scattered from these strings (describing protons), the main contribution comes from a string that is close to the boundary and it is therefore seen as a point-like object. So a string-like interpretation of a proton is not at odds with the observation that there are point-like objects inside it.

Gerard t’ Hooft:

ReplyDeleteI don't know if you have looked at my page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ .

There is evidence that simple pressure calculations will give the right strengths for long range fundamental forces, using cosmology data as the input.

The two long range forces, electromagnetism and gravitation, will require two aspects of the spacetime fabric field. The kinetic field, like gas pressure, to produce gravity/inertia (both the same by the equivalence principle), and the virtual radiation will produce electromagnetic forces.

If I understand your suggestion correctly, the fifth dimension is in 5-D string theory is suitable. Obviously the spacetime fabric is difficult to sell nowadays. We know Einstein may have been trying to resurrect the 'ether' for general relativity in his Leyden lecture of 1920, and that Dirac linked it vaguely with QED:

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v168, 1951, p906

Despite this, it is impossible to get further work based upon this approach accepted as serious and published. A suggestion that special relativity is just a working mathematical model which has been superseded by general relativity ( http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=240#comment-4508 ) is about as far as anyone can go.

Obviously the electron must be spinning at light speed for a transverse electromagnetic (TEM) wave to propagate between two conductors at the speed of light for the insulator between the conductors. Maxwell's 'displacement current' equation describes the charging of a capacitor or transmission line as a continuous process. In fact, as Catt pointed out in 1976, the energy flows in to a capacitor at light speed and never 'stops'. It bounces back off the far edge, nearly doubling the voltage as it collides with further incoming energy, so the capacitor charges in a series of discrete steps. When you look at the particle-wave duality of electricity, you conclude that the field at light speed carries the energy, and the electron drift current is a response to the field.

Displacement current is really energy transfer. If all electrons are effectively capacitor plates, they are all charging and discharging at similar rates, so there is displacement current flowing between all charges in the universe. The momentum carried by the energy causes forces. It is very sad that Bohr, upon finding that spinning charges should radiate, simply 'outlawed' the process instead of investigating it.

All of the objections to classical theory seem to stem from people who are too dense to grasp that if every charge is spinning and radiating energy at an enormous rate, the charges won't spiral into the nuclei of atoms, because they will be receiving as much energy as the radiate.

How on earth Bohr missed this I will never know. Popper states in his book 'Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics' (Rowman and Littlefield, NJ, 1982, p6):

'... the view of the status of quantum mechanics which Bohr and Heisenberg defended - was, quite simply, that quantum mechanics was the last, the final, the never-to-be-surpassed revolution in physics ... physics has reached the end of the road.'

Agreed, with that sort of political law against clear thinking, physics had reached the end of the road.

Hi Nigel,

ReplyDeleteI am going over your post. I am very green too, so I hope you will be patient.

I was going after consensus in terms of how temperature on Bekenstein bound was seen in context of 5th dimenison and 5d comparisons.

Bekenstein image is very useful here as was Lee Smolins discription.

But yes I am thinking here on the probability of all events from a fifth dimensional perspective.

Glast determinations in the calorimetric view brings us close to early understanding of cosmological events. This comes to mind as you speak to pair production.

Does our understanding of the gravity field lessen, because such detection systems have moved to gamma ray understanding on the Window on the Universe. See Glast site for this.

It opens the door to the conception of light and gravity as a method of determination.

This joining would have been based on Kaku's valuation that gravity and light are indeed joined.

Path integral approach would have listed my wonder to where the photon had travelled, and yet we see the valuation on the screen of Young's.

I hope this was not to confusing:)

Hi Plato,

ReplyDeleteThank you very much. It seems very clear, but that may mean I misunderstand!

The Bekenstein bound conjecture suggests that black holes in 5-D spacetime are seen as electromagnetic radiation in the 4-D hologram which is described by general relativity.

This suggests why gravitational effects propagate at light speed: gravity is observed as the push from this radiation. There are two equivalent mathematical descriptions of gravity: for example, the concept of a physical push mechanism is consistent with the concept of the curvature of space.

This can be proved by considering the contraction of spacetime around mass, which causes the Earth's radius to diminish by (1/3)GM/c^2 = 1.5 mm. You can either say that this is a consequence of general relativity, or you can say that it is a squeezing effect by the spacetime fabric. In the same way, the length contraction in the direction of motion in special relativity can be viewed either as a mathematical consequence of certain experimentally based principles, or as the physical effect of an object pushing into the spacetime fabric, and being compressed.

The curvature of spacetime itself can be considered either as an abstract result of Einstein's field equation, or as the consequence of the physical compression. The gravitational field compresses the Earth's radius by 1.5 mm, without affecting the circumference at all, because the contraction only occurs along radial field lines, with no affect at right angles to them. Therefore the value of Pi must vary in the equation: circumference = 2Pi x radius. The only way to deal with this physical effect is non-Euclidean geometry, curved spacetime. So I think you can say that dealing with 'spacetime curvature' is mathematically equivalent to dealing with a physical pressure source for gravity.

There are grave problems with the Higgs field and graviton, both of which should be equivalent by Einstein's equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass. These problems appear to occur because of the abstract nature of the mathematical models involved, particularly of gravitons in quantum gravity. I think the Higgs boson is spin 1 while the graviton is spin 2 ...

:)

As you follow, finding relation in physics comparatively is important to me to bring comprehension along side of theoretical developement.

ReplyDeleteWhy sonoluminence as a topic is worth looking at.

You say:This suggests why gravitational effects propagate at light speed: gravity is observed as the push from this radiation.Lets look at the nature of early cosmological events. The electromagnetic force is directly connected to the brane, while the graviton is not?

Attempts to comprehend this in valuation of the billiard game of balls hitting each other was wonderfully extended to the "sound" as they hit.

Would it be so bad to find examples, where such comparative views might help us to see the physics of the temperature of the blackhole rise through collapse, while extending the boundaries, a cooling tmeperature until it had reached it's furtherest growth, at which point, such collpase is initiatied?

So how shall we deal with the fifth dimension now? The very nature of the spacetime fabric would feel this sound embedded with it's very design?

Michio Kaku:Similarily, the laws of gravity and light seem totally dissimilar. They obey different physical assumptions and different mathematics. Attempts to splice these two forces have always failed. However, if we add one more dimension, a fifth dimension, to the previous four dimensions of space and time, then equations governing light and gravity appear to merge together like two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Light, in fact, can be explained in the fifth dimension. In this way, we see the laws of light and gravity become simpler in five dimensionshttp://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/5th-dimensional-field-equations.html

If we see the context of gravitational waves, represented by the grvaiton, how would we see such a relation and carrier represented as the photon that would find relevance in the graviton?

The extension of GR would have lead us to the fifth dimensional attributes, as the graviton? Thus the standard model would have increased it's capacity to incorporate the graviton as a carrier.

So will we say such strengths and weaknesses are the strength and weakness of graviton gatherings and how shall we see this(dimensional relation reduced to spacetime)?

It had to be understood that the graviton is not held to the brane like fermion strings are. So to me, the photon present within the gravitonic gatherings would speak wonders to the nature of those dimensions?

Yet such natures as we would see expressed in earth's time variable measure would be a wonderful new view on how we see our world?

Hi Plato,

ReplyDeleteI must agree with Kaku’s view, which you quote above. What attracts me to the 5-D spacetime with the spacetime fabric as the 5th dimension is the suggestion that black holes in 5-D appear as radiation on the 4-D hologram.

I recalled reading that David Bohm seemed to write something like this about the spacetime fabric, but was less definite (I think it was in his book 'Wholeness and the Implicate Order', but I will need to check).

There is a spacetime fabric of any type, Higgs boson or graviton, or photons without longitudinal oscillation.

One way to address this for physical calculations is to consider how much of this fluid space there is in a cubic metre of volume, and what effect ordinary matter has on it.

Assume that 1 m^3 contains a fixed amount of spacetime fabric plus ordinary mass-energy, then what happens when ordinary matter moves out of that cubic metre? Clearly, more spacetime fabric would need to enter to keep the volume filled.

Since there is electromagnetic evidence that ordinary matter may be treated as 4-D black holes, it is neat to think of the spacetime fabric as 5-D black holes which appear as radiation when seen on the 4-D hologram.

The chief difficulty with the LeSage pressure model for gravity is that fluid pressure disperses in all directions, whereas gravity (as a pressure effect) is directional. In a liquid, pressure disperses since molecules strike one another and dissipate kinetic energy in all directions. But because the spacetime fabric permeates through most of the atomic space, it pushes fundamental particles in the shield direction without dispersion. This implies that the source of gravity pressure is similar to light pressure in a vacuum, not to air pressure.

Best wishes,

Nigel

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image9.JPG

ReplyDeleteThe illustration above summarises my basic mathematical argument for gravity prediction from http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/

Dr Lubos Motl has made a comment about this discussion here:

ReplyDeletehttp://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/dark-matter-and-3-extra-dimensions.html#comments

Lumo said...

Dear Nigel,

that article involves many ideas. The holographic principle is correct in quantum gravity, at least in some contexts.

Maldacena's correspondence is correct - and even more reliable and it's one of the reasons why the previous paragraph is true.

Neither the holographic principle nor anything else leads us to modify the rules of quantum mechanics.

No consistent deformation of the quantum mechanical postulates is known and there are many reasons to think that none is possible mathematically.

I did not understand how these things should be related to kinetic theory of radiation.

Best

Lubos

10:54 AM

Nigel said...

Dear Lumo,

Thanks for your comment. I've summarised the idea in this illustration: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image9.JPG

I agree that the rules of quantum mechanics do not need modification. What seems to be needed however is a clear, testable way to bring in gravity.

It seems that the spacetime fabric can be viewed physically as a form of radiation, pushing masses. Where shielded from this by another nearby mass, you get pushed towards that mass by the asymmetry.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Hi Nigel,

ReplyDeleteI understood Lubos's response and statement below.

Lubos Said:Neither the holographic principle nor anything else leads us to modify the rules of quantum mechanics.

No consistent deformation of the quantum mechanical postulates is known and there are many reasons to think that none is possible mathematically.

It was important to understand that the link phrase below is one that arose from Gerard t'Hooft himself.

Perhaps Quantum Gravity can be Handled by thoroughly reconsidering Quantum Mechanics itself?

I just wanted to get this out of the way first.

I have something of a perplexing view that was brought about in a linked article here.

ReplyDeleteAnother theory is the material shooting away from the dead star starts to fall back on to itself - in the process heating up enough to produce X-ray lightI wanted to highlight this statement made and a response to it. I ask what you think if we attribute such a idea of the spacetime fabric as the fifth dimension aspect joining the standard model into the graviton, as a carrier of the gravitional force?

How would you assess this action observed in a fith dimensional mode?

As strange as it would seem the tendency of brane analogy needed to be addressed, as I was looking at the idea of the vacuum as an intricate part of the connection of all graviton's. So each, even though respresentative of this gravitational force would have spoken to the continuity expressed, like a boson represented in the tree?

Langrangian coordinates see that such evidence of the tree, as energy determinations, would show this variation in how we interpret that landscape.

Greater concentrations of gravitons would indicate what and what shall the weak field show?

My response recognizes the information send from this event, and although this information is sent over a vast distance, it is still connected to this brane, while the graviton is not.

So the vacuum must be intricately linked to the stretching as you have been stating from a electomagnetic perspective and again, as a gravitional one.

While this information is held to that brane, the collapse can be indicated from such strengths in representative pair production?

Heat generated would reveal this information as the gravitational collapse heats up this blackhole?

I am trying to be consistant here, but I as a layman am open to mistakes.

The expanstory valuation of that blackhole would show a different information, because of the nature of the temperature of that blackhole on expansion. This is elementry and one Smolin and others are addressing in glast's calorimetric views?

What would ever drive a situation to supersymmetrical valuations.

The collapse does this, and is also the trigger?

Hi Plato,

ReplyDeleteIn weak interactions, there are two charged mediators and one uncharged one which is more like a photon. I don't think it is automatically the case that we have to think of a simple mediator for gravitation.

For example, there is the issue that inertial (and thus gravitational) mass arises from the Higgs boson in the standard model, and the Higgs boson has different spin properties from the graviton. Possibly both particles are involved, or there is something wrong with existing theory.

Best wishes,

Nigel

Just to let you know, I have revised the page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/

ReplyDeleteIt now begins with the gravity mechanism proof and then discusses the 5th dimension as being the spacetime fabric.

'It has been said that more than 200 theories of gravitation have been put forward; but the most plausible of these [the Lesage-Feynman pressure shielding scheme] have all had the defect that they lead nowhere and admit of no experimental test.' - Sir Arthur Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge University Press, 1921, p64.

Another revision of the page mentioned with the gravity mechanism. I had a muddle.

ReplyDeleteI have two calculations for the force, using different approaches. In one of them the outward force produces an inward force. In that calculation, the outward force is F=ma, where m is mass of the universe. The effective inward force is the same, so the effective mass of spacetime fabric pushing inward can be viewed as similar to the actual mass of the universe.

The other calculation is completely different, and is the one I give at the mentioned page. It has the advantage of not requiring any assumption of the cross-sectional shielding area associated with a fundamental particle for gravity.

In that calculation, the shielding effect is done not by equating the total inward space mass equivalent to the mass of the universe which is moving outward, but by considering just the mass which is shielded.

Geometrically, whatever the shielding of 1 kg mass, it will shield the same area as the inward pressure from 1 kg. This can be compensated for the great distance of the mass which is creating the inward pressure. So an optical-type focussing effect occurs, which you would expect for a Lesage gravity shadowing.

"Plato said...

ReplyDelete"I ask what you think if we attribute such a idea of the spacetime fabric as the fifth dimension aspect joining the standard model into the graviton, as a carrier of the gravitional force?"

The difficulty is to separate speculations from facts. Clearly the spacetime fabric fills those portions of three dimensional volume which are unoccupied by what we perceive as matter.

When you consider how ordinary matter moves through the sea of the spacetime fabric, you can see how it creates inertia (resistance to acceleration), since you have to push against it to start it flowing around your fundamental particles and into the void you leave behind you.

The major problem with the idea of spacetime fabric as a fluid is the speed of gravity, which is light speed. It is interesting that Hawking's radiation formula for black holes suggests that the effective temperature of the black hole (for emission of black body radiation) is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole.

If fundamental particles are effectively black holes, they would emit Hawking radiation with energy far above ordinary gamma rays. This would mean that they would not interact very much with electrons, just with nuclei (or the Higgs field around the fundamental particles in nuclei).

The main way these extremely high gamma rays would be detected in large quantitied would be by the momentum they impart as they are stopped by Higgs bosons in nuclei. Thus, gravity.

The statistical spread of these gamma rays (black body radiation spectrum) would ensure that a few are high above average energy. The random impacts of particularly high energy impacts would provide a causual trigger mechanism for radioactivity. However, the rigorous mathematical treatment of nuclear physics is an unappealing project.

One problem is that the assumptions used to derive the Hawking radiation formula are not regarded as being valid for very small masses like fundamental particles.

Dear Plato,

ReplyDeleteThe gauge boson radiation causing gravity and electromagnetism is DISPLACEMENT CURRENT. Catt shows that Maxwell got his interpretation of this ‘displacement current’ wrong, by ignoring the time it takes light speed electricity to flow along the capacitor plates. His co-authors Drs. Walton and Davidson mathematically worked out how the transmission line theory of Heaviside can be applied to explain the charging curve of a capacitor, which is compared to reality and is a correct prediction. Catt's error follows from Heaviside’s false idea that the light speed electricity Poynting-Heaviside vector is the same as light, with the two conductors guiding the light which travels in the insulator between them. This is false, as we know electricity originates as electrons in conductors and such like, although it is true that the measured speed is that in the insulator not the wires. What is going on is plain from quantum electrodynamics, gauge bosons/photons are being exchanged via the insulator between the two conductors. This is why parallel wires carrying currents attract/repel. In addition, the radio transmitter and receiver aerial form a capacitor with air as the dielectric. The radio waves are displacement current energy, detectable just when the varying current varies the electric field across the transmitter aerial. In the same way, the displacement current flows in the capacitor only while the field in the capacitor plate is varying, due to its charging up or discharging. Maxwell's error was fiddling a theory to fit Weber's 1856 observation that 1/(root of product of permittivity and permeability) = c. This fiddle is like the application by Rayleigh of a wave equation to sound without understanding the pressure and force mechanisms involved in particulate (molecular) sound waves. Planck showed the resolution to the problem with the wave model of light by the quantum theory, while Bohr had shown that Maxwell's light theory was incompatible with the atom. Nobody corrected Maxwell's false theory, however. In reality, ‘displacement current’ is the gauge boson, causing electromagnetic and gravitational forces, and all radio and light waves. Emitted by due to the centripetal acceleration of continuous, uniformly spinning charges (fundamental particles) with no oscillation, it is undetectable radiation, but still carries pressure and force (pressure times area), causing fundamental forces.

Best wishes,

nigel

It is tragic that 't Hooft spreads falsehoods abusively about Ivor Catt's lifetime of work on capacitors:

ReplyDeleteElectric energy flows at light speed, so it goes along the capacitor plate

at that speed. Maxwell's equations ignore all of the processes inside the

capacitor.

Maxwell has no mechanism or physics, zero, nada, zilch.

How many kids have to be killed before Nobel laureate Hoof gets off his high

horse and understands the problems?

----- Original Message -----

From: "Nigel Cook"

To: "Hooft 't G." G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl; "'Ivor Catt '"

ivorcatt@hotmail.com; bdj10@cam.ac.uk; forrestb@ix.netcom.com

Cc: jvospost2@yahoo.com; arueda@csulb.edu;

ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk; geoffrey.landis@sff.net;

bernie@ebeaminc.com; lukas.nemec@czi.cz; dave.mortimer@tiscali.co.uk;

bruce@snyder.co.uk; CooleyE@everestvit.com; Jeremy.Webb@rbi.co.uk;

james.snyder@linuxmaIL.org; j.r.gribbin@sussex.ac.uk;

gordon.moran@tiscalinet.it; andrewpost@gmail.com;

tonyc@saunders1865.com; dswalton@plus44.net; rfreitas@rfreitas.com;

tom@tomspace.com; jack.l.worthington@office.xerox.com;

george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov; sbaskerville@cox.net;

michael@drpelling.fsnet.co.uk; physics@wbabin.net;

quantoken@yahoo.com; woit@math.columbia.edu;

peter.hitchens@mailonsunday.co.uk; lsmolin@perimeterinstitute.ca;

greg.swift@express.co.uk; andrew.clark@guardian.co.uk; "Hooft 't G."

G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl; adrianspage@Safe-mail.net;

simon.edge@express.co.uk

Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 3:10 PM

Subject: t'Hooft shows what happens to Nobel Prize Winners who lose touch

with reality

> t'Hooft, please stop this abuse. You won the Nobel Prize for

> renormalisation work in quantum field theory which was dismissed by Dirac,

> so that doesn't excuse your abuses of other people. Your pet theory is

> wrong:

>

http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/fifth-dimension-is-spacetime-fabric.ht

> ml. You should not associate it with my work as you do there, if you are

> unwilling to study the facts behind classical electromagnetism. Being

> abusive about Catt's work does not prove anything.

>

> t'Hooft cannot claim he knows more about capacitors than Ivor Catt, who

> spent his entire career measuring their response to transients.

>

> Maxwell ignored the light-speed spread of energy along a capacitor plate.

> His equation for the charging of a capacitor plate is a continuous curve,

to

> be contrasted with the experimentally and theoretically validated correct

> step-wise plot

>

> Oliver Heaviside showed when signalling with Morse Code in the undersea

> cable between Newcastle and Denmark in 1875 that electrical energy is

> transmitted at the speed of light for the insulator of a cable: it

'charges

> up' just like a capacitor! This is because all electromagnetic energy

> consists of such fields, even photons, and the varying electric field

> throughout a photon does not violate conservation of charge, because

photon

> number is not conserved in quantum mechanics!

>

> Lack of physical understanding kills people. Ivor Catt in Electronics

World

> September 2003 issue, 'EMC - A Fatally Flawed Discipline' pages 44-52:

>

> 'during the Falklands War, the British warship HMS Sheffield had to switch

> off its radar looking for incoming missiles ... This is why it did not see

> incoming Exocet missiles, and you know the rest. How was it that after

> decades of pouring money into the EMC community, this could happen ...

that

> community has gone into limbo, sucking in money but evading the real

> problems, like watching for missiles while you talk to HQ.'

>

> More deaths linked to the suppression of Catt's work: Electronics World,

> January 2003, pp12-14:

>

> 'In July last year, problems with the existing system were highlighted by

> the tragic death of 71 people, including 50 school children, due to the

> confusion when Swiss air traffic control noticed too late that a Russian

> passenger jet and a Boeing 757 were on a collision path. The processing of

> extensive radar and other aircraft input information for European air

space

> is a very big challenge, requiring a reliable system to warn air traffic

> controllers of impending disaster. So why has Ivor Catt's computer

solution

> for Air Traffic Control been ignored by the authorities for 13 years?

Nigel

> Cook reports.' - http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm and

> http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ewk.htm

>

> How on earth does the media (e.g., the author of most of the popular books

> on quantum entanglement, Dr John 'Jupiter Effect' Gribbin) worship 'string

> theory' which Dr Peter Woit has proved is 'not even wrong', while ignoring

> the proved experimental facts of electromagnetism which contradicted the

> textbook formula for Maxwell's displacement current but allowed Ivor Catt

to

> design the world's first wafer-scale integration product, a 160 MB solid

> state memory right back in 1988, which won the 'Product of the Year Award'

> from the U.S. journals Electronic Design (on 26 October 1989) and also

from

> Electronic Products (in January 1990), after Sir Clive Sinclair's offshoot

> computer company, Anamartic, invested £16 million (see

> http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm)?

>

> http://feynman137.tripod.com/

>

>

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Hooft 't G." G.tHooft@phys.uu.nl

> To: "'Nigel Cook '" > Sent: Tuesday, December 27, 2005 12:52 PM

> Subject: RE: Editor Jeremy Webb discredits integrity of the New Scientist

>

>

> > Please remove me from this list. I don't want my in-box to be polluted

by

> > all this nonsense about Maxwell's equations. The Maxwell equations

> correctly

> > describe the propagation of signals as well as the conservation of

charge

> in

> > capacitors, period. Keep me out of any further discussions.

> > G. 't Hooft.