The first, the last and the only criticism of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics






(A Peyote-induced Physics Bone-chiller)

The strange case of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics
Was this the handiwork of the Priory?

The answer in seven easy steps

(Horror and Occult)

Essays on:
Physics in the Twenty-first Century

Series Index


Bibhas De

Copyright 2005-2010 by Bibhas R. De

hit counter


The Priory of Sion may or may not exist
The Priory of the Dungeon does
Be afraid! Very afraid!


The graphics do not belong to this site. They are displayed, with thanks, 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"

Strangest thing! Nobody has commented on the very odd aspects of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. Just as accumulating experimental evidence was plainly contradicting the theoretical discovery, and otherwise there was growing scientific doubt around it, the discovery was forcefully declared to be consummated. Quick, before it melts! The usual laudatory celebration has then gone on. The fearsome secret society of the Priory of the Dungeon has everybody where they want them. The Grand Dragon must be smiling from within his cloak and hood. His predecessor, the mysterious character known only as the Watchmaker, would be pleased too. The entrenched physics community is as fearful as the Elois. The Media is as docile as the Stepford wives. The Barbarians at the Gate fought a good fight, but are losing out. The grandest conspiracy at intellectual world domination is progressing unchallenged, apace.

The 2004 Prize, and its uncritical acceptance by the physics community, may be symptomatic of how deeply and pervasively sham the conduct of physics has become...

The Priory's even more fearsome sister secret society:


Don't go there!



Count Dracula, Meet Dr. van Helsing

This essay is not primarily to create a controversy about the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. Any such controversy would be about as productive as the same for an Oscar. The Nobel Committee (hereinafter "the Committee") is neither democratic nor public, and does not owe anyone any explanations. But behind a controversial prize, there is usually an agenda. If there were a hidden agenda behind a Physics Prize, that agenda would need to be discussed most vigorously in an open scientific society. Since the physics establishment does not appear to be such an open society, I will do the discussing.

The 2004 Prize was awarded for a theory elucidating the nature of Strong Force, which is the last unexplained component of the Standard Theory ("Standard Model") of Particle Physics, a Quantum Mechanical theory on the nature of elementary particles. While this seeming victory is being celebrated, the public is not being told about the trouble brewing for the Standard Theory.

The Standard Theory has been for some time, and is increasingly coming under serious question.

First, the discovery that neutrino has mass places the theory in jeopardy. Compare this to holding the Holy Cross up to Dracula. They plan to fix this by applying patches to the Standard Theory.

Second, increasingly from many quarters outside of the mainstream physics establishment (i.e., from the Barbarians at the Gate), the suggestion is coming that the photon is not a massless particle either. If true, this can incapacitate the theory. Compare this to daybreak for Dracula.

Third, if the photons have mass and magnetic field, they might interact with one another. There is now experimental evidence, for example, that orthogonal electric and magnetic fields from different sources can combine to form an electromagnetic wave. There is even talk of a structure of photon, with a longitudinal (in the direction of propagation) magnetic field component. These developments are fatal for the Standard Theory. Compare this to Dr. van Helsing driving a wooden stake through the heart of Dracula. If you are not familiar with Dr. van Helsing, Buffy the Vampire Slayer would do nicely.

And do not forget the emerging line of experimental evidence that larger and larger carbon atom complexes are exhibiting quantum behavior! Within the world of the Quantum Theorist, this is like a 300 lb ballplayer sitting in a crib, sucking on a pacifier.

In the face of this rising chorus of criticism, the Committee chose to confer the prize. But that is not all.

If the above can be called an external atmosphere of doubt, there is – echoing this – an internal atmosphere of doubt as well. That concerns the scientific evidence on which the discovery was considered consummated. As to that evidence, read the material put out by the Committee, and you will end up saying to yourself: Methinks the Committee doth justify too much!

They do. And with good reason. They rushed to give the award before it becomes even more difficult by the year to justify it. Quick, before it melts!

The 2004 Prize is being pitched as something like the ancient papyrus map to the Holy Grail. If you follow my reasoning below, it may seem more like a more modern concept in documentation, referred to as a Bill of Goods.

Finally, the Committee has also now set up shop as a combination of Supreme Court of Physics Development and Physics Thought Police. They made declarative statements essentially to the effect that the Standard Theory is the officially correct physics, and the only physics. And, believe it or not, they also declared that this is the official path to the Theory of Everything! Nirvana Avenue is exclusively theirs to drive on.

You would think that this is as strong an indirect way of saying “Barbarians need not apply” as one could formulate? Apparently not. In case some diehard Barbarians think that things may change down the road and their names might appear before the Committee, it goes on to say: If, God forbid, the Standard Theory should fall apart, it shall be the Superstring Theory that will be the acceptable substitute.

This is not an amusing matter. Not really. I cannot think of any other example in history of a more ingenious plot of an intelligentsia seizing control of the scientific pursuit. Except perhaps eugenics.

The “science” of eugenics, it is little known today, had a wide and powerful support base among the scientific, social and political intelligentsia – in the United States and in Europe. They were a veritable “establishment”. They were going great guns until a certain Austrian corporal went too far. The corporal and his henchmen faced some accountability for what followed, but the intelligentsia escaped unharmed. History was rewritten for them. They are today recognized as some of the greatest men of history.

If you feel uneasy about the comparison with eugenics, just take out the social context and look at the realm of ideas. There is ongoing today a clearing of the brush around the Standard Theory. With eugenics, the idea also had to do with a type of clearing. And history will be rewritten here as well. When the Standard Theory unravels and the Barbarians turn out to have the right and the bright ideas, their ideas will be inducted into the Standard Theory in some clever way (cleverness they got by the barrel-full!). The Barbarians will remain exactly where they are.

Behind all this today is the invisible hand of the secret society, the Priory of the Dungeon. Did the Priory get to the Nobel Committee, or did they infiltrate it?

That is the question.


2004 Nobel physics prize laureates H. David Politzer, Frank Wilczek and David J. Gross (L to R) address the audience after giving their speeches in the Stockholm University, Sweden, Dec.8, 2004.

Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.

- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533-1592)

... it is the correct theory....

- Nobel Prize Committee for Physics (2004)
on a detailed description of happenings inside a proton inside the nucleus inside an atom


The Nobel Prize for Physics – through long history and tradition – has come to be universally accepted and respected as the ultimate imprimatur on a discovery or a development. It signals that all serious questioning of the subject work must now cease, that the work is the scientific truth. It places the recipients on a pedestal high enough to be beyond the reach of any type of edible projectiles. While some other Nobel Prizes, such as those for literature and peace, may come under criticism, the physics prize is given the ultimate untouchable status. This situation has come about naturally and with good cause, as a cumulative effect of the sound judgment shown in the award of the prize to genuine, deserving work - spanning over a hundred years.

The 2004 Nobel Prize was given for an impressive theoretical calculation addressing an impasse in the development of the Standard Theory (“Standard Model”) of elementary particles. It explained the Strong Force, the last unexplained force of the proposed four forces of nature. The calculation supposedly showed excellent agreement with experimental data, and withstood the test of time (some 25 years). On this basis essentially, it was declared to be a fully consummated discovery.

The truth, or at least the truth as I alone see it, is that it was at best a credible scientific proposition. The rest of the adornments that have been hung on it in the post-award statements from the Committee are secondary justification. The award is given strength from the fact that the discovery was counterintuitive. The work is said to extend a long-established path of inquiry. It is said that the discovery clears way to a Theory of Everything. These Nobel Laureates, it is said, are the latest in an aristocratic lineage.

A large part of the work of physics is to develop theories that fit experimental or observational data. Many times, multiple and distinct theories agree with the same set of data, to varying degree. A choice is then made upon further detailed tests of their comparative merits. So, one theory agreeing with data does not say much about the unique correctness of that theory. This comment applies whether or not competing theories exist (or have been allowed to exist). As to the test of time, the Piltdown Man withstood the test of time for 40 years – during which period it underwent thorough scientific scrutiny. Imagine a grand prize given for this work in the 39th year!

You can hide all these objections under the force of great authority and great expert consensus, but they never really go away. History tells us so. You can push truth away from everywhere, but in the 21st century it will always have a last sanctuary: The Internet.

Of far greater and deeper concern than the Prize is what lies beneath the surface. The Committee very cleverly used the occasion of this award to make several declarative statements of final judgment, much as the United States Supreme Court renders final judgment on matters of great societal import. They, the Committee, made these statements in a very carefully worded report that has strong underlying legalistic tone and tenor. The Committee declared that the Standard Theory is the only scientific truth, a distinct Strong Force domain is the only correct scientific description, and asymptotic freedom (for which the 2004 Prize was given) is the only correct description of the Strong Force. Finally, they proclaimed that this is the only path to a Theory of Everything.

In this manner, the Committee took upon itself, and handled, the problem of growing unrest created by the Barbarians at the gate. They cleared the brush around the Standard Theory.

And most interestingly, there was no discussion anywhere about so momentous a step in the history of science, taken so stealthily. One does not expect the shallow scientific press to have the wherewithal to look so deep, but surely physicists at large were fully aware of what had transpired. But nobody said anything - not in public at any rate. It is the old carrot-and-stick situation. You do not want to upset the Committee – who knows when your name might come up before them. But if you are not after this carrot, there is then the stick: The Priory. Who knows who is sitting on your tenure/advancement committee!

So there you have it: The King James Version of physics, courtesy of the neoGideons. Welcome to the Twenty-first Century.


It is not inconceivable that an award may be given in good faith and upon due diligence, for an idea that later falls apart. This is perfectly acceptable, and no one should be faulted or made humor of. It is another matter altogether when a prize is given for a scientific proposal in an atmosphere of clear and present doubt.

In this case, there had been for sometime a rising cacophony from many directions about the foundation of Electromagnetic Theory and hence the nature of mass and matter, of photon and elementary particles - as well as approaches to a Grand Unified Theory. All these created a cloud of doubt above the Standard Theory. More specifically, the question of photon mass has come under serious consideration.

It is true that this cacophony came largely from ostrogoths and visigoths (collectively, "the Barbarians") outside the ramparts of the Physics Establishment. But not all of it. One of the vanguards of this movement, Bo Lehnert, Professor Emeritus of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, is a highly respected scientific colleague of those within the Nobel Prize-giving body. He is a member of the Nobel Prize-granting body. He is a very fine and meticulous thinker – I know this firsthand because his mentor and my teacher were one and the same person. And if one thing characterized that person, it was unorthodox thinking. In today’s buzzword lingo, this is ‘thinking outside the box’.

In the web site of a physicist whose work appears to be not acknowledged by the mainstream physics community, Lehnert wrote, with that courage which is born of intellectual honesty and purity:

Electromagnetic field theory still remains far from a completed area of research, and a new era of epochmaking investigations appears now to have its dawn. Myron Evans is one of the outstanding pioneers in this field of modified and extended theories. New fundamental properties in photon physics are thus due to Evans, such as the Evans-Vigier longitudinal magnetic field component in the direction of propagation of the photon, and an associated small but nonzero photon rest mass. As a continuation of Einstein’s ideas, a new unified field theory on electromagnetism and gravitation has also been developed by Evans which debouches into a general form which reduces to all the main equations of physics in appropriate limits.

I use this quotation from Lehnert not to draw attention to the work of Myron Evans, but to Lehnert's own views on Electromagnetic Theory - perhaps expressed mor succinctly here than anywhere else. There is no question that the Committee was aware of these developments casting doubt over that which they were about to anoint. When you take photon on one hand and mass on the other, and put them together, there is an explosion of cosmic magnitude that blows away much of the construction of modern particle physics.


[Source: Lehnert: ; Vigier:; Evans:]

Swedish physicist Bo Lehnert, French physicist Jean-Pierre Vigier and Welsh chemist Myron Evans have sought to give specificity to the obscure concept of photon. Why have you never heard of these interesting ideas? Because it does not behoove the quantum-worshipping establishment for you to hear of such sacrilege.

All of which brings me to the purpose of my writing this article. The Committee is only incidental to my thesis. My purpose concerns my long-standing theory about the Priory of the Dungeon (hereinafter "The Priory"). This is the whole reason of my writing this page: To gloat that the 2004 award substantiates my conspiracy theory! Told you so!


The origin of the Priory has been described in the thriller The Cat and the Eel. Formed during the first half of the Twentieth Century, this is an intensely secretive society. It has such an elaborate system of communication that members may not even know that they belong to the Priory. Unbeknownst to them, they do the Priory’s bidding. Only the five-member High Council which elects the Grand Dragon knows who he is. The system of secrecy has been fashioned after the cold-war era Komitet Gosudarstvennoi Bezopasnosti.

The purpose of the Priory is a clear, single-minded one: To preserve and protect the edifice of Quantum Theory from all enemies domestic and foreign. In practical terms, the purpose boils down to this: Always keep the obscure concept of photon completely obfuscated. “Persuade” everyone from attempting to give any type of specificity to photon. If anyone still gets out of line, convene a meeting of the High Council in the Star Chamber. Then, if so decided, dispatch a mechanic followed by a cleaner.

The Grand Dragon of the Priory is given a strange name so as not to give out any clues as to who he is. Here is the history thus far:

The Founder: Der Uhrmacher
Second Grand Dragon: Mannlicher-Schoenauer
Third Grand Dragon: Pa rum pum pum pum
Fourth (current) Grand Dragon: Howdy Pardner

The salutation of the Priory (the way members recognize one another) has not yet been uncovered. It is believed that forming the letter M with fingers has something to do with the salutation.

It is believed that Dan Brown, author of the best-selling thriller Da Vinci Code about the super-secret, super-powerful Priory of Sion (whose purpose is to preserve and protect the bloodline of Christ) really intended to write about the Priory of the Dungeon. For reasons unknown, he changed his mind. Subsequently, it is believed, Michael Crichton looked at this subject, but for some reason ended up writing the safer book State of Fear about environmental eco-terrorists and fearmongers.

The Priory. Be afraid! Very afraid!

So why am I not afraid, you ask? I am wearing a string of garlic around my neck! It makes me stink something awful, but I am safe.

Now let’s get down to the business at hand.


There have been many expositions of the work that led to the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. We do not want to belabor that here. We simply want to set up the problem for our purpose. So, here is a first-level summary:

The Prize was given for a discovery known as ‘asymptotic freedom’, within the area of Quantum Chromodynamics, which is a part of the Standard Theory - within the general branch of physics known as Quantum Theory. Asymptotic freedom concerns how quarks, particles that make up protons and neutrons, behave with respect to one another. The force between quarks here is called the Strong Force or Strong Interaction. The discovery is that quarks, unlike electrons (say), attract each other with a force that becomes stronger as the distance between the quarks increases. When the quarks come close together, the force becomes weaker asymptotically – as though the two particles are now independent of each other (Hence the name asymptotic freedom). Thus the discovery is said to elucidate the nature of the Strong Force, which has been explained as a new, “color” force. The Strong Force is conveyed by gluons, particles which – instead of having electric charge – have something new called color charge (hence the name Chromodynamics).

Now, when you examine something of this momentousness, you have to be very careful – scientifically as well as logic-wise. So let us identify the basic material we will use. We will get our story directly from the horse’s mouth. The Committee has put out two versions of the justification for this award: One intended for the public, Version A, and the other intended for the specialist, Version B. We will use both.

This also frees you, the reader, from the need to go to the library and seek out scientific papers. Everything you need is available from your desktop. Furthermore, for our purpose, we need not at all go to the intricacies of physics. That is precisely what you do not want to do – to get needlessly bogged down in details and lose sight of the main issue.


If you read Version A carefully and between the lines, you will see repeated allusions to the fact that asymptotic freedom sits critically on a multi-story edifice that has been erected over many decades. But it is presented in a reaffirming way: This work stands on previous Nobel-prizewinning contributions. Get it? The previous Nobel Prizes are solid floors of the edifice, so this one has to solid also.

For our purpose, let us identify some features of the lower floors, specifically, the four basic forces of nature:

(1) The gravitational force is carried by gravitons (not yet found).

(2) The electromagnetic force is carried by photons (which do not interact with each other, and which have no rest mass and no electric charge).

(3) The weak force is carried by bosons (massive particles)

(4) The strong force is carried by gluons (no mass, no electric charge, but color charge).

The last three forces together are referred to as the Standard Model. Their starting point, both logically and historically, is Classical Electrodynamics. From that was developed Quantum Electrodynamics, and thence to the Electroweak Theory, which seeks to link the electromagnetic force and the weak force.

Roughly speaking, the Standard Theory is the Edifice.


So we start with Classical Electromagnetic Theory. Now, at a first level, the current formulation of electromagnetic theory (most of which is embodied in the Maxwell’s Equations), going back to about the middle of the 19th century, is always under attack from one corner or another. It has always been so. It is like everyone wanting to build a better mousetrap. There is no branch of physics where there has been more debate or more acrimony. It is not our task to address or assess that issue, but to simply note that this type of activity cannot be put forward to criticize the Edifice. For one thing, scientifically, the Edifice is more fortified than that which contradicts it.

Now, however, in recent years there has been a growing chorus, from many independent quarters, that the photon has a nonzero rest mass. (I will not go into detailed referencing, but simply do a Google search under "nonzero photon mass" and the whole subject will be at your desktop.) This result is completely at odds with the Edifice. You will be given a general answer that this type of ideas are being pursued by the Barbarians outside the city walls, and that you should not be concerned about this.

I do not agree with this statement as it stands. Scientific truth can come from anywhere. If you start assigning credibility score to the sources, you have then to distinguish between a Ph. D. from UC Santa Barbara and UC Santa Cruz. It is ludicrous. The proper thing to do is to look at the work – even if it is from a retired postal worker or a patent examiner. Suffice it to say, the scientific establishment has not addressed the issue as it relates to the Barbarians.

But let us play along. Now the problem for the establishment is this: The Committee physicists themselves have a colleague, a distinguished academic, who is a vanguard of the photon mass movement. Why do they turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to him? I do not know. But it is clear that he is publishing his work in the fringe publications.

There is no strong reason to oppose the mass of a photon except to preserve the Edifice.

You see, a great deal depends on the photon not having a mass. You have no idea how much depends on the photon not having a mass until you stop and think about it.

And that is where the Priory of the Dungeon comes in. They will ensure that photon has no mass, not officially.

Let us at this point give our imagination some reins. You are a fly on the wall of the conference room where the Committee meets for the final time. There are five members, and oddly, an outside consultant representing an unnamed organization. Here is what you might witness (The names have been altered to protect the innocent):

Dramatis personae:

        Erki: Committee Chair
        Gunnar-Gosta: Committee Member
        Thor-Bjorn: Committee Member
        Ingeborg: Committee Member
        Sven-Bertil: Committee Member
        Ebbie: Consultant

Act III, Scene III:

Place: A Conference Room in the Royal Swedish Academy

(Curtain rises - Fade in)

Enter the Committee – Ebbie in tow.
Coffee and mazarins are served.

Erki: The Committee will come to order. Welcome, Ebbie. We are pleased to have the benefit of your Organization’s advice. And thank you for your letter of recommendation. We are here today to finalize our choice. Gentlemen, are there any pending issues we need to look at?

Ingeborg: There is the matter of the views of our dear friend and colleague Bo Lehnert.

Sven-Bertil: Good old Bosse is just having some post-retirement fun. He is too nice a gentleman to have anything to say about our choice.

Thor-Bjorn: Nevertheless, there is the issue of appearance.

Ebbie: Never you folks worry. My people can squelch any criticism. After the Prize is announced, I will make some comments to the Media from the prestigious platform of my University, supporting the choice. My Organization has the Media in its pocket.

Ingeborg: What about the public failing to understand what this grand discovery is all about? Can your Organization help there?

Ebbie: The most exalted Grand Dragon has considered this point, and proposes the following stagecraft. He suggests that you round up a man and a woman from the Academy’s staff. Then have them stand close to each other, and put a giant rubber band around their waists. When they walk away from each other, they will be pulled closer. They will wear a pained expression on their faces. When they move close to each other, they are free to do whatever they want. We can show the woman happily talking on the cell phone to her boyfriend. Asymptotic freedom, simple! The cameras will be rolling. The public is basically stupid, and they will lap it up.

Sven-Bertil: That is diabolically clever!

Ebbie: Thank you. Also, the most exalted Grand Dragon would now like to start building up our esteemed colleague in String Theory for the Prize. He thinks this year is a great occasion to get the process going – so that we can bring it to a head in a couple of years.

Gunnar-Gosta: No problem. We can give him a plug at the end of our write-up this year. But, I am still uneasy about Bo Lehnert: I have great respect and admiration for Bosse. And he has something of a following. Here’s what I propose. Let’s don’t say anything about the photon. If we acknowledge any issue with photon mass, we cannot proceed with this Prize. But technically speaking, Bosse’s issue is first with Electromagnetic Theory which, in our case, translates to Quantum Electrodynamics. When we write up our justification, we can say that QED has proved to be a highly accurate science. This way we decouple Electromagnetic Theory from the Standard Theory, and hence the Strong Force. Then way we are covered.

Erki: I think that is a good solution. We are now ready to present our choice to the full membership of the Academy. Does everyone agree?

Chorus: We agree! We agree!

(Drum roll)

Erki: Tak simiket. Tak ska du ha. The decision is made final, and the Committee is adjourned.

(Exeunt Committee – Ebbie in tow, talking on his unlocked triband GSM cell phone).

(Fade out - Curtain)


You know Inspector Maigret, the French detective? He and his associates Lucas, Janvier, Lapointe and Torrence formed a great team that solved crime through a combination of hard work and brainpower. But Maigret himself had a very special style. After he surveyed a crime scene, he did not go back to his precinct immediately. Instead, he hung around the neighborhood. Then he found a bar and sat on the sidewalk with a Pernod, soaking in the ambience – the comings and goings, how the day grows, when the housemaids leave etc. This is an intellectual version of casing the joint. Once having developed a feel for the neighborhood, he can view the crime in some context.

Inspector Maigret soaks in the ambience

But, most important, Maigret is always on guard that things may not be what they seem.

So, to get to the bottom of this caper we have on our hands, let us soak up the ambience.

First, I would read the Version A, intended for the general public. This nicely keys you in to the neighborhood.

But you should really then go on to Version B – a most remarkable document with multi-layered messages. I would simply read it through even if I did not understand most of it. I would still gain a sense of history, of passionate scientific quest spanning over the better part of a century, of failures and setbacks, of final victories, and of tragic figures and lucky winners. And also a sense of mathematics harnessed into the service of physics. It is a physics epic, with many heroes and no villains. (Until now, perhaps.)

The subliminal messages are combination of pleadings, justifications and warnings, intended to preempt any criticisms or questionings of the Committee decision. Some of these messages are, in my reading:

(1). DON’T EVEN DARE: This discovery comes as the final fruition of decades of search by the highest minds. Don’t even dare question it.

(2). NOBEL BEGETS NOBEL: This is the latest Nobel Prize in a distinguished lineage of Nobel Prizes in this particular field. This is a part of an integral series. You question this, you question the entire package.

(3). DON’T WORRY, WE ARE CAREFUL: There were many false leads in the past, but we did not give out prizes for them. We only gave prizes for the correct discoveries. So we have a track record of doing the right thing.

(4). NIRVANA AVENUE: We are embarked on a long pilgrimage, and with this discovery, the Temple is in view: The Theory of Everything. (Translation: Nirvana is at the end of that road on which we are journeying, and no other roads.)

(5). ESCAPE CLAUSES: But just in case, we equip ourselves with escape capsules. Quantum Electrodynamics is a highly accurate science (Translation: That is why we are not worried about the Barbarians reworking the Electromagnetic Theory, and especially Bo Lehnert). The recently discovered mass of neutrino may do the Standard Theory in. String Theory – which is being worked on by our boys - may then come to the rescue. There, we have said it all. So, don’t blame us in case of these eventualities.

(6). WE ARE NOT AMUSED: We will not acknowledge the Barbarians at the Gate. We will say nothing about photon mass, or extensions of the Electromagnetic Theory. But we will give a nod to the far more controversial String Theory, for it comes from within our midst. We take care of our own.


My main point is obviously the pointed ignoring of the gathering dark cloud. But did scientific evidence for the theory justify this ignoring? Not really.

A theory is consummated by experiment or observation. Everything else that is advanced by way of justification is wrappings and adornments, icing on the cake, and rum that soaks the cake. This is a most important point, because you have to recognize what is decoration (don’t eat the candles!), what is icing (that stuff is bad for you), and what is rum (never enough!). Remove them, and then taste the basic cake.


So first, let’s remove the basket and the decorations, which are:

(1). Believe the theory because it correctly predicts something that is counterintuitive. The renowned physics historian Stephen G. Brush has argued – based on the analysis of many historical and contemporary examples – that successful prediction from a theory does not in and of itself add credence to the theory. There are involved “political” considerations: If the theorist is in favor, the successful prediction is cited as consummating the theory like nothing else. If the theorist is out of favor, a host of excuses are found why the prediction is not acceptable.

(2). Believe it because it has withstood the test of time. Many bad theories have survived for decades.

(3). Believe it because it completes a story line by explaining the last unexplained force: The Strong Force. A completed story is still a story.

(5). Believe it because when an intricate theory agrees with experiment, it means more than when a simpler theory agrees with experiment. (Translation: My math is bigger than your math.)

Now let us carefully scrape off the icing, which comes in many layers and flavors:

(1). Believe it because our three amigos did this while they were still at a very tender, dreamy age (i.e. they were adult prodigies.) Out of the mouth of babes....?

(2). Believe it because it was very hard work. (Cf. President George W. Bush in 2004 Presidential Election Debates)

(3). Believe it because it is now in the graduate level textbooks. Who put it there?

And finally, we have to figure out a way to dry off the rum:

This is the trickiest part – and some readers and I might part company here. It concerns the strongest justification that is advanced for the Prize: Expert consensus. The experts have recommended that this is a worthy prize. If you, reader, accept this – as most, if not all, will – then there is no point reading this article further. There is in fact a strong bureaucratic point in favor of expert consensus: What other way is there?

For those who stay with me: Expert consensus in physics today means about as much as the same in Miss Universe contest. This is subject I can go on and on, but let us stay focused. Let me just learn you a thing or two about experts!

Academics see hundreds of recommendation letters on job candidates. They see that some average candidate gets strong letters from high places. A fine candidate – who has ticked off people – gets letter with veiled warning messages. Academics can even engineer what kind of letter to get by pre-priming the author of the recommendation. There is often mutual back-scratching (You support my guy, I will support yours). These are facts of life that academics know very well, but may not admit to. So much for letters of recommendation. Rude awakening for you? I am sorry.

Now on to expert consensus. Ever heard of the much experts-lauded contributions of Jan Hendrik Schoen? How about the experts-endorsed seminal discovery of Victor Ninov? And if one had listened to the expert opinion of the British Royal Society, your long distance travel options today would be limited to Greyhound and Amtrak.

What I am saying to you is this: Be on your guard. Everyone has an agenda that they are cleverly pitching at you. (My agenda, if you have not already guessed, is that of a Barbarian outside the Gate). Today, subliminal suggestions are coming at you faster than cereal ads are coming at kids. The Committee tells you how the experimental data were acquired from huge international collaborations. The Media is telling you what wunderkids the discoverers are. An Internet campaign lists chronologically the great discoveries of physics, and seamlessly tacks on to that the present “discovery”. The jury pool is being carefully primed. Unbeknownst to yourself, you are becoming predisposed to viewing the experimental evidence leniently, and in a positive frame of mind.

So what do I suggest you do? When this evidence is presented on a paper, you should instead forget everything, and look at just that piece of paper. This is what your scientific training has taught you. Whether a hundred million dollars were spent to acquire the data points, or five vestal virgins were sacrificed for the gods to give man the theory curve, is completely irrelevant. That’s the ultimate beauty of science.

Now we are down to the basic cake. Take a short break, get a cup of coffee. This is going to be fun.


The experimental evidence, as I understand it, comes basically in two categories:

A. Comparison of theory with Coupling Constant vs. Energy data from experiments.

B. Comparison of the theory with particle shower data.

Both types of evidence have been presented in Version A. It appears that the second category is really a supporting, semi-quantitative test. It is the first category that is being put forth as the clenching evidence. Coupling Constant is a parameter that can be derived with certain assumptions from the raw experimental data obtained from large particle accelerators, and also computed from the theory under certain assumptions.

Now here is the Category A data from Version A:

Figure 1: Evidence as presented to the public

And then there is the evidence in Version B, which is addressed to the experts. Here, more comprehensive data compiled in 2002 and 2004 are presented in the two diagrams:




(a)                         v  (b)

Figure 2: Evidence as presented to the experts

And below, I reproduce the most key paragraph the Committee has given us in justifying the award:




Although there are limits to the kind of calculations that can be performed to compare QCD with experiments, there is still overwhelming evidence that it is the correct theory. Very ingenious ways have been devised to test it and the data obtained, above all at the CERN LEP accelerator, are bounteous. Wherever it can be checked, the agreement is better than 1%, often much better, and the discrepancy is wholly due to the incomplete way in which the calculations can be made.

Now, as far as I can gather, the above diagram is really the distilled essence of the experimental evidence: It puts the best face forward. Or at least it is representative of the data that support the theory. So, what do we have here?

What we have here is a total disconnect between what is shown in the diagram, and what is being said in the interpretive text. It is difficult to see that the text corresponds to the diagram.




In examining Figure 2, I employ the following clear, straightforward premise:

A. If the experimental data are good enough to be touted as overwhelming evidence for the success of the theory, they are just as good to question the theory.

B. If we are talking of agreement of better than 1%, then any features in the data at this level are significant to the proceedings.

C. The primary test of theory is hard, quantitative data. If that succeeds, then secondary tests (semi-quantitative or qualitative data) and circumstantial evidence are pertinent. If the primary test fails, nothing else matters much. We are dead in water.

So, what I see in the diagram is:

Although the right panel shows data from different sources than the left panel and is on a different scale, in terms of scope of the diagram, the right panel is an expanded sub-portion of the left panel. In the right panel, we see that the uncertainty in the experimental data is typically about 10% or more. In the left panel, if you leave out the very large error bars - as you might if you are making a stringent test - the scope essentially reduces to that of the right panel – 10 GeV and above.

We are trying here to get past the salesmanship aspect of presentation that every scientist is familiar with. Just plot the 10 GeV error bar from Figure 2(a) onto Figure 2(b), and you will see what I mean by saying that the 1 – 10 GeV data having too much leeway for theory comparison. You can fit a mouse into a house. But what does that signify? Only this: A mouse in a house. This type of fitting should best be left to Dr. Seuss on the Loose.

Within this smaller scope 10 – 200 GeV, we note from both Figur 2(a) and 2(b) that:

(1) Based on the latest compiled data, the general agreement between theory and data is fair, given the uncertainty in the data. There is no conceivable way one could conclude that the evidence is here overwhelming. And there is no way in God's green earth one could claim better than 1% agreement from this type of data. I would love to learn the trick of claiming better than 1% agreement between theory and data when the data points have uncertainty of several percent.

(2). There are two distinct features in the data (at about 75 GeV and 175 GeV, Figure 2(b)), "dips" resembling absorption lines. (Take a printout, get a red pencil, and connect the dots – you will see very clearly what I mean). These are also confirmed in Figure 2(a), but have been masked there by the compressed scale of that figure. The dips are shown in the details of Figure 3. Simple logic suggests that if the data points were spaced closer, the dips can only become deeper, and of course more well-defined. If these dip features are real, they are likely to be the primary clue to the underlying physics – physics that is not reflected in the theory curve. If asymptotic freedom theory is finessed to explain these features as second-level effects, that is another story. If these features are experimental artifact (random scatter in the data, for example), then the rest of the experimental data are also at issue.


(a)           (b)

Figure 3: Details from Figure 2(b) showing "dip" features in the experimental data vs theory

However you look at it, there is at the very least, based on nothing more or less than the evidence you are staring at right now, a reasonable doubt. You can choose not to see this, or you can pause to think.

If today you were making a theory ab initio, you would no more ignore unexplained peaks or troughs in experimental data than you would ignore the lobed structure of an antenna pattern. In both cases, the most stringent test of the theory would be the ability to predict the dips/nulls.

One other point. Do not get bogged down with arguments about the statistical goodness of fit between theory and data. It will be said that the theory curve is contained within all the error bars, and therefore the fit is good. Never mind the sharp and the obvious dip features. On this basis, you can fit a straightline to sinusoidal data points. Or you can fit the profile of an elk to the profile of a cow, and prove that the elk is a cow – with a high level of statistical confidence. As long as you never mind the antlers of the elk, that is.

As to the 1% accuracy of agreement of the theory with data that have far larger uncertainty, it will be said that the data accuracy is statistically improved to this level by taking a large number of measurements. Sounds very cogent, right? Suppose that for a given energy level x GeV, you have a vertical distribution of experimental data points from repeated measurements. You replace these points by a single point, and some statistical deviation measure of better than 1%. That is what is being said. But what about experimental error bars? These are arrived at not from the repeated measurements but from detailed analysis of the experiment itself, and are not improved by accumulating statistics. And if these experimental error bars were better than 1% to begin with, why were not these bars shown in the latest diagrams? The point is: Statistics cannot improve upon irreducible experimental limitations. Nor, if you have actually studied statistics, does statistics ever claim to do so. People who do not have hands-on experience with design and conduct of experiments cannot understand this, and say foolish things with great authority. And do not forget what the experiment here is: Particles being smashed together in large-scale accelerators, and then observed with highly complex machinery. Better than 1% experimental accuracy? I think not. Better than 1% statistical accuracy? May be, but it does not mean anything.

The above invoking of statistics is in reality a form of linguistic deception and intimidation: Scientific jiggery pokery. Most people are awed or cowered by authoritative posturing or tough-guy arrogance of physicists, and accept their logic. Most people are being misled – deliberately in the present case, I think.

Now, the Committee gives us another clue as to what to make of disagreements where they arise: ….the discrepancy is wholly due to the incomplete way in which the calculations can be made. So it is the computation! The theory is fine! The question is, if you cannot compute properly, how do you know that the result of the computation would have agreed "wholly" with experimental data - i.e. the features are contained in the theory?

Do not forget to note how this effect is not present in Figure 1 intended for the hoi polloi like me. It is nothing like Figures 2(a) and 2(b). Figure 1 is picture perfect, with a slight blemish left in - which makes it even more credible. Another fine promotional strategy.


Figure 4: Visual psychology of how a slight blemish enhances an already perfect beauty

I am familiar with a line of investigation in physics where the data (but not the subject) have a similarity to the present case. This concerns the dielectric constant of brine-saturated rocks (of crucial interest in oil field physics) vs. frequency. These are down-trending curves that flatten out at higher frequencies, but have increasing error bars towards lower frequencies. Because of the great leeway in the data at lower frequencies, multiple theories have been developed that fit the same data set. These theories have no true "free parameters", and therefore cannot be tweaked. These theories flatten out to the same value at higher frequencies, but differ at lower frequencies – although all are contained within the data error. That is where their relative merits are to be judged – but cannot be judged because of the self-same leeway. It is a conundrum. So, we have a case of multiple theories explaining the same data. In the present instance, we have only one theory, which is not to say that other competing theories are not possible. So, the only game in town has been proclaimed as the only game, period.

I do wish to belabor this point: If there were competing and equally developed theories in the present case, a choice between the theories would probably have to be made where the data is least reliable. In other words, an incontrovertible choice would not be possible. So the mere absence of competing theories of similar standing is what made the Nobel Prize possible. And because of this prize, competing theories will not be developed in future. How very convenient!

I am also familiar with the field of electromagnetic measurements which, though not related to the present measurements, may offer some clues. In the former case, in measurements plotted against frequency, the "dip" features can sometimes arise due to resonance and phase wrap-around problems. Such dips corrupt a wide range of data around them. Basically, the measurements are worthless, and any new theories developed on this basis are also worthless. There are fixes one can apply to avoid these problems, leading to good quality data.

To summarize: When you cut through all the layers of delicately flavored icing, the primary evidence we have at the core is just what you see in Figure 2(b). There may be more data like this, and there may be other secondary evidence. But quantity does not make up for efficacy. Five B grades do not add up to an A+ grade.

If the dips are real, asymptotic freedom is in question. If the dips are experimental artifact, then the whole experiment is in question, and therefore asymptotic freedom is in question. These are the two and the only two conclusions possible. Without clear explanation of the dips, there are no grounds for a third conclusion that says that asymptotic freedom is correct.

The possible evidence tentatively supporting the theory, it appears to me, is underwhelming-to-fair.

Here then is my interpretation of the data:




At the low energy end (< 10 GeV), there is too much leeway in the data to permit any conclusions from a single-theory comparison. At the high energy end, there are clearly visible features in the data not explained by the theory, nor ascribed to experiment. The highest energy experimental data have a slope contrary to asymptotic freedom theory. Yet here is where the name of the theory derives from. The visual appearance of an overall "broadband" agreement is misleading. More and different diagrams of this type will not change this conclusion. Secondary support from particle showers should be reexamined in the light of this failure of the primary comparison with hard quantitative data.

The 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics may be have been the result of intense and sustained lobbying effort, more than anything else. Pure scientific grounds cannot even remotely justify this award - as discussed above.

But I do take my hat off in awe to the Committee. They may have done a most advanced smoke-and-mirror job: With fine storytelling, deep subliminal suggestions and deft draftsmanship. The underlying salesmanship here is at a remarkably sophisticated psychological level. Let me explain.

Take a look at this picture (If you have seen this before, make believe that you have not):


What do you see? Folks sitting in a bar, drinking.

Now suppose I tell you about the brooding American painter Edward Hopper. I tell you how he liked to capture in his painting the loneliness, the vacuity and the ennui of modern city life. Note the completely empty city street. You get a sense of absence. I then tell you the picture is called Nighthawks. Now look at the picture again. What do you see? Great sadness and great beauty.

This transformation from your first reaction is of course a beautiful experience. From a mundane vignette of city life, you are lifted to higher thoughts of human condition and aesthetics – once given a context.

The Committee has very cleverly used this capacity of the human mind to transformation on a context. But they have used the ‘technique’ in reverse. In the above example, a mundane scene became profound, when are given a context. In the present case, a profound context is first established, and then questionable evidence is slipped in as profound evidence of correctness of the theory. In Version B, intended for experts, they have presented such an elaborate story line with so many appealing nuances (with history, geography, veritable Greek tragedy of human foibles and failures and missed opportunities, the agony and ecstasy, etc), that even the expert fails to see the obvious: What you have in the end is just a questionable agreement of the theory with selected aspects data which, by their very nature, have large uncertainties. The expert thinks he is eminently following the Committee’s logic and reason, whereas in fact his own logic and reason are being placed in suspended animation.

With this level of sophistication of technique, you could sell:

- Ice cubes in winter in Tuktoyaktuk;
- XXL tee shirts in the land of the Lilliputs;
- Long range domestic passenger jets to Lichtenstein;

Madison Avenue, Stand up and take note! Them folks in physics can learn you a thing or two.

As I said, it may be that there is tortured explanation for the strange paragraph from the Committee interpreting evidence, but my feeling as that if you start digging into those explanations, you might find more than you bargained for. But given the representative data, in order to buy into that paragraph, you would have to be as far removed from the scientific process as Nanook of the North, or as unquestionably trusting as the children of Hamelin.


Nanook of the North enjoys the benefits of science. Children of Hamelin follow something other than logic and reason.

The physics establishment (and through them the Media – and thus the world) has happpily swallowed the Committee’s paragraph hook, line and sinker. There is not a hint that anything is the matter. This is a very important point to note about the contemporary physics establishment – especially as it relates to its quality.

But if you, reader, are neither from Igloolik nor from Hamelin, proceed to Step Seven.


As I said before, the issue here is not so much the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics itself, but what went on behind the scene, and the hidden agenda that is being executed. Let the Laureates enjoy their fame and fortune in good health.

The Priory of the Dungeon, formed in the early part of the last century to preserve and protect the edifice of Quantum Theory from all enemies domestic and foreign, is today concerned mainly with the Standard Theory. The founder, the Watchmaker, is of course long gone. It is not difficult to guess who the Grand Dragon is today.

The latest item on the Priory’s agenda has for sometime been the elevation to sainthood the discoverers of the penultimate component of the Standard Theory: Asymptotic Freedom. The ultimate is of course the Theory of Everything. The Priory is also fed up with the Barbarians at the Gate, and wants to deal with them once for all.

The 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics conferred the sainthood accordingly, and decreed that the Standard Theory is the official, and the only correct physics. The award also served a cease-and-desist notice: Theory of Everything is theirs to formulate. Barbarians stay outside the city walls! And if there is a problem with our theory, what will take its place is Superstring Theory from our guys. So, Barbarians, curl up and die.

And this vehemence leads to the question: Did the Priory get to the Committee, or did they actually infiltrate it?

What has happened is not difficult to see. Twenty-five years ago, a "cool" theory was developed that predicted something counterintuitive, and was soon to be corroborated by experimental data. The theory was then lauded and hyped and made a part of the textbooks. What could go wrong after this? Later experimental data that contained clear warning signs were said to give further confirmation to the theory. Everyone accepted this. In due course then, the sainthood was conferred on the theorists at Stockholm. The lesson of this is also clear: If everyone concerned accepts a questionable premise to be the truth, then the premise becomes the accepted truth.

This works especially well when the outside world is unable to judge what has transpired, and when the media colludes in the enterprise.

Thus it is that the official justification of the Prize is the collective decision of experts in the field. Against this, why should anyone think about what some Internet weirdo says? This is a good point, and I do not have an answer to this. Suit yourself.

But I also can cite a thing or two about "experts". The first and the most obvious point: Behind every theory of physics that fell apart in the past stood a great many experts. These were big-time academics with titles, Chairs, Sofas, Davenports and Whatnots. So, expert consensus in itself does not amount to ‘a hill of beans’. Bear in mind that these experts do not face any accountability for their opinion – often given under the assurance of anonymity.

In the field of the practice of medicine, there are similarly experts. However, in this case, the experts always issue a great many cautions, ifs, ands and buts with their collective expert pronouncement (First opinion, second opinion, board review etc). Why? Because here real lives are at stake, and real punishment (even financial ruin or imprisonment) may follow expert posturing. So you can see that wherever there is real accountability for collective expert opinion, there is suddenly great reservation. In academic physics, there is no such accountability.

One other point: Individual physicists may be fine, upstanding, moral individuals. But they seem to feel somehow that when they act within a collective, they can transgress. So one should not say: Well, so-and-so has endorsed this view and therefore it must be an inherently a good decision.

I have already told you about the British Royal Society (The Collective of Experts) vs the Wright Brothers (The two Barbarians). Here, let me pick a safe example from outside of physics. I like to summarize my view in two words: Piltdown Man.

A relic of an ancient ape-man was discovered near the village of Piltdown in Sussex, England in 1912. Experts verified it as such – and there followed a tremendous academic celebration. On digging deeper, more relics were found in time in the "dig", and experts concluded that there was overwhelming evidence that the theory is correct. Laudatory ovations followed.

This fitted nicely into a cherished story line, you see. The British wanted to believe that their island too was the cradle of man, and not just Europe and Africa. The story withstood the test of time for 40 years. Not dormant years, but years of vigorous attention.

Even as early as 1915, someone who did not know any better suspected that this was a grand hoax. To draw attention quietly to this, he fashioned, and surreptitiously placed in the dig a certain bone implement appearing to have been carved by the ancients. But his effort backfired. Experts found the implement, and advanced it as further evidence of the advanced social life of Piltdown Man.

The implement was a cricket bat.

One cricket bat, two dips – Are you getting the picture?


Physics – at its root – is very simple. The ultimate reality of physics, as I have shown, is this: Mass is magnetic field, magnetic field is mass. Everything emanates from there. Failure to understand this has resulted in the development of huge and unnecessary superstructures of theories – over the past century. Names and tags have been given to a zoo of particles which are but different expressions of magnetic field. These theories are like the holographic dance of ghosts in the Haunted Mansion Ballroom in Disneyland. Mysterious, captivating, awe-inspiring – and accompanied by otherworldly music. But in the end, there is no substance and no remnant. There has been no progress towards discovering the ultimate reality of physics. If you think about it, this entire theory enterprise thrives because a powerful establishment tells you that it is good. Periodic sprinkling of this activity with high profile accolades helps keep it believable. Anybody that questions the enterprise is quashed.

If you think about it some more, the particle theorists – of all the physicists – should have been the ones to recognize that there was a problem with the beginnings of the concept of magnetic field; that magnetic field is the quintessential mass in physics. This should have happened even as Particle Theory began to take shape as a distinct discipline - if not sooner. However, this did not happen. And when you did not get the foundation right, but kept on building tremendous superstructures and ramification and buttresses and guy wires and with profuse use of Superglue and Loctite, what might happen? Have you heard of what happened to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?

The long-standing Tacoma Narrows Bridge was designed on solid physical principles. Then one day, during a windstorm, sinusoidal vibrations grew resonantly, and the bridge collapsed. Physics made it incorrectly, physics did it in correctly.

In the deep background, Particle Theory has developed in a most interesting way that no one has noticed. No Robert Ludlum and no John Grisham could think up this plot. A small coterie that is continually perpetuated through successive generations subscribing to it, has perpetuated and strengthened a story-line directed at self-anointing. The highly institutionalized experimental facilities have been tailored to support the story-line. The anointing of successive storytellers with the Nobel Prize has set this story-line in concrete, with extensive network of re-bars. Legendary heroes and superheroes have been created a la Greek mythology. No one has ever asked why this story-line is the exclusive truth, and if parallel developments – also supported by experiments - were possible. (The issue then would have been: Which theory is most supported by experiments? What experiments should have been done but were not done?). People who advance alternative ideas today are told by journal editors: You have to first show what is wrong with the existing theory before we even look at your idea. But the unique correctness of the existing theory cannot be examined without the healthy existence of published competing theories. So they have got it all covered by creating this vicious cycle. An author who receives the above journal rejection thinks it is a specific response to him, little realizing that it a part of grand scheme of a certain supersecret brotherhood: The Priory of the Dungeon.

Look at it another way. You go to the target practice range with assorted firearms and assorted ammo, and an assortment of glass bottles. You line up the bottles and start shooting. Now, Particle Physicist X theorizes that you will see a shard with aspect ratio x. Sooner or later you will see this shard. X's protege Y predicts that a shard will fly with a very narrow solid angle whose direction he specifies. Sooner or later this will happen. Y's student Z predicts that the shards will show signs of melting. You will see this. You have a never-ending story. Now, what about the theories X, Y and Z propounded? Have they uncovered new laws of nature?

If you smash the heck out of atoms, a heck of a lot of things will happen - and they will fit a description that is continuously being developed alongside the smashing activity. That does not in any way tell you unambiguously that this description illuminates some undiscovered laws of nature. It may be that description is all that is going on – couched though this may be in physics language and equations and matrices and rigor. It may be that the true physics nature of particles – of even the smallest conceivable particle – has completely eluded us.

And just because some committee in Stockholm certifies successive installments of the developing story-line, it does not become the exclusive truth. A great many engineers and oversight committees surely must have certified the Tacoma Narrows Bridge as functional and safe.

Mathematical physicists - most of whom are incapable of physics ideation without the aid of mathematics - have played a major role by intimidating others. This age of intimidation is also rapidly coming to an end. Today’s computer can do everything a mathematical physicist can do, only better. An "ordinary" physicist can instruct the computer, and achieve the end that a mathematical physicist would. The monopoly of these high priests has been broken. Their jig is up.


Will the 2004 Physics Nobel Prize unravel, you ask? The answer is, emphatically, NO! How exactly is it going to unravel? It would have to done by the experimentalists and engineers who designed the machines and conducted the experiments. Deep inside, they are most uncomfortable about the dips. They are thinking: Something is not right here. Surely they have to know that their data have been overinterpreted to suit a story line – at the exclusion of other possible theories. So, consider this scenario involving such an experimentalist Herr Pfeifenleisebläser. The following is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to real persons or events or menu items is purely coincidental. The author denies that he has received any leaked information from within the establishment.

Herr Dr. nat. rer. habil. Hendrik "Pfeiffy" Pfeifenleisebläser is happily employed at the famous lab. He has bought a beautiful house in the suburbia which, with his wife and two children, he is enjoying immensely. He has mortgage payments on the house and the new Beamer Z8, and medical bills and so on. What kind of a damn fool is going to jeopardize all this in favor of something as useless as scientific conscience? However, Herr Pfeiffy is the son of a pastor, and develops pangs of conscience. One day, he walks into his Boss’s office and says: “Boss, Can I speak to you about something that’s been bothering me?” Now the Boss, a seasoned manager, senses trouble. He asks: “What’s it about?” Then Pfeiffy says that it’s about experimental verification of asymptotic freedom. The Boss immediately realizes: This is a CYA situation. He says: “Pfeiffy, I haven’t touched base with you in a long time. Why don’t we have lunch at the Ratskeller?” So, the matter is moved away from the official venue. It is going to be off-the-record.

Now, as the Boss is enjoying his dish of Schweinekotelett mit rosti, Pfeiffy unburdens himself. He concludes: “So the data have been fixed around the theory.” The Boss listens the whole time without interrupting, and then says: “Pfeiffy, Have another beer. There are here very powerful interests at stake. (Looking around him and lowering his voice:) Surely you've heard rumors about the Priory, and what happens to those who cross them. They can dispatch a legbreaker, or worse yet, a mechanic. They can contract the job out. Haven't you heard of Smyert Shpionam? Look at it this way: Even if there were a problem with the data, they will say that there are many other lines of evidence that support the theory. So, even if you raise a stink about this, the theory will be saved harmless anyway. The rug would be pulled from under you. So what would be the point of raising this issue? Think about it. And Hendrik, how are Elke and the kids enjoying that beautiful new house of yours?” Pfeiffy is pflabbergasted – but the beer begins to warm his belly. Even as the Boss's message slowly sinks in, the soporific effect of the quaff causes him to have daydreams. He sees his father delivering the Sunday Sermon within the ancient church of Neresheim. Then, outside the church, he sees a figure he remembers having read about somewhere: Sophistophilis. He dreams of having the following conversation with Sophisto:

HP: Sophisto, I too would like to enjoy the company of the legendary Helen of Troy.

S: Your wish is my command. Whom do you wish the great lady to resemble?

HP: I would like her to resemble the most beautiful woman living today.

S: I hear and I obey. My master the Lord of Greyness will grant your every wish. You can have whatever you want, do whatever you wish, and travel to any lands, any seas and any islands in the world. You may even visit the Happy Isle and meet the great Achilles. But please remember that you have pledged the Islets of Langerhans to my master. He can claim them anytime at will. That is the price you pay. That is the Pfeifenleisebläserian Bargain you have made.

And presently, Pfeiffy has a fleeting preview of himself tearing down the autobahn at 160 kmph in his BMW Z8. Seated next to him: Helen of Troy. The face that launched a thousand ships is now shown to him in the likeness of "the most beautiful woman in the world" - Aishwarya Rai of Bollywood.


”The most beautiful woman in the World”

Suddenly, the Boss's voice brings him back from the reverie: "Pfeiffy, You are falling asleep. Have a coffee."

At the verge of complete surrender to the forces of Greyness, the pastor's son makes one last feeble-voiced attempt at doing what he came to do: "But Boss, I was thinking that we have a responsibility to our profession."

"We most certainly do. Only, the profession has changed. Today it is no longer about doing good physics. It is about doing good-looking physics. Just think of the expression Asymptotic Freedom: There, in a single imaginative coinage is combined the sense of limitlessness with the highest aspiration of the human mind. The stuff of great philosophy. It gives you a sense of approximating divinity. This is the kind of stuff the funding public wants to see from us. In the end, we are in the same business as your Dad. So get with the program, Pfeiffy!"

Then the Boss offers the Coup de Grâce : “By the way Hendrik, we've got plans for you.”

In that moment, there in that semi-dark dining room smelling of beer and sausages, right around the pork bone on the plate - meticulously picked clean, scientific truth in physics dies another small death.

And that is how the course physics will shape from here on. It will be shaped by the Priory the way a powerful political cabal can shape something as momentous as the history of a nation. If you cannot accept it, here’s what you do. Go to the Transporter Room, stand in the central pod, arms straight and pulled in tight, and say:

Me transmitte sursum, Caledoni.



A few days later, one Saturday morning as his local public library just opens its doors and there is hardly anybody around, Pfeifenleisebläser walks in and signs up for half-an-hour of Internet time at a secluded corner terminal. He opens up Microsoft Word and composes a long letter. He does not provide any clues to his own identity. Then he creates a temporary Yahoo! id: Then he looks around to make sure nobody is watching him. Nobody is. He takes out a crumpled chewing gum wrapper from his pocket, and looks up that certain email address he had jotted down. He enters this on the recipient box and shreds and discards the wrapper. He transfers the letter from Word to the email form, and in the subject box, he writes: Der Priory des Kerkers. This way he is sure the letter would not be deleted as spam. Then he clicks on the send button. Just one more thing to do. He cancels his email account. He walks out, heaves a heavy sigh of relief, breathes the fresh morning air, and says to himself: "Ahhhh.., Das Leben ist sehr gut!"

With a spring in his steps, Pfeiffy starts to walk over to his parked Beamer - waving to the person seated in the passenger seat, and merrily singing:

Heut kommt der Hans zu mir,
Freut sich die Lies' :
Ob er aber über Oberammergau,
Oder aber über Unterammergau.
Oder aber überhaupt net kommt,
Des ist net g'wiss.

A bit later, half a world away, the recipient - looking less like an avuncular Father Confessor and more like a potbellied glutton - reads this email while munching on a samosa between sips of milked sweet tea. Then he mutters: Tell me something I don’t know.

A year later, Pfeiffy would fall seriously ill - with some type of pancreatic ailment. The Priory would try to help him secretly but in all earnestness - bringing to bear on the problem the greatest medical minds. But Pfeiffy would not be diagnosed, and he would not recover.

Half a world away, the Abominable Samosaman would say a quiet prayer for Pfeiffy.

But in the fragrant Fall of 2004, no one would have any inkling of what physics exploration, deep in the deep background, had become. No one would even believe that a highly organized intellectual suppression apparatus has been secretly evolved – reminiscent of the physical suppression apparatus of the Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del and the Geheime Stadtpolizei of yesteryear. Instead, champagne would flow freely in that certain mighty university campus. The celebrant, quite justifiably wearing a tee shirt marked "One of a kind", would savor his moment in the sun. For many years in October, he spent sleepless nights waiting for his telephone to ring. And now his time had finally come. Deep in his heart he now knows that when he walks into a fancy restaurant, heads will turn - ever so discreetly. His meal may be inerrupted by requests for an autograph or two - but such is the price of fame.

In the Fall of 2004, a noble academic front of great quests and great hopes is what the public would see physics exporation as. They would see a child's innocent curiosity driving a group of selfless, ardent truth-seekers to great achievements.


Or, may be there is another direction future could take.

The 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics could serve as symbols for two things: The final exposing of the organized clique that is today's theory enterprise; and hence a turning point beneficial to mankind: The end of a long era of fiction, and the dawn of a new era of proper physics development.

This would be a glorious era. It would necessarily start from the ultimate reality of physics as I have uncovered. To learn about this, start here.


Posted 14 February 2005



And now, the Academic Eraser!

Remember I said that if you come up against the Priory, they will dispatch a mechanic and a cleaner? You did not believe me? Well, read on then.

On February 5, 2005, as I was writing the above essay, I made a post in the Cornell University Physics Grad Society Message Board. Under a section of general interest to the graduate students, I posted a message titled "An unorthodox view of physics today", and the message was simply an invitation to visit my page with an index to the essays. There the message stood for a few days, and number of viewings kept increasing. Then the mechanic went to work and erased the message. But he did a messy job. Even though the message was "erased", there was blood splatter all over – my name still remained in the listing of messages, with the date and time of posting. The cleaner is yet to come!

It seems that the higher education the graduate students are receiving includes a training to avoid subversive literature called just criticism. The students do not even get to decide for themselves what they may or may not want to read. I am now considering delivering this literature in plain brown wrapper.

On March 2, 2005, I posted a message to the Columbia University Physics Message Board, outlining my experience with Cornell, and wondering how long Columbia would let my message stand, with the link to the above essay. Here, the mechanic-cleaner duo went to work within 15 minutes of the posting.

My next foray, on the same day, was to the Physics Illinois Blog of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne. Here the system is slightly different: You do not post directly, but send your link by clicking on the "Suggest a Site" button. So I sent the same message as above. Then came a response that this is not a message board, but a listing of sites that would interest their visitors. So I responded that they should list my site; it would interest every visitor. In this instance, the duo acted preemptively. The link never appeared.

It seems that petty bureaucratic excuses for avoidance of criticism is also a technique used. It is like saying: I won’t take my medicine today because I am fasting.

So you can see that even the faintest voice raised against the Priory causes these supreme intellectuals – engrossed in raging discourse and serene ideation in their message boards - to suddenly close their minds like a frightened clam. O how they close their minds! They live in a make-believe world of their own which has little to do with a true search for the ultimate essence of physics. Anyone who seeks to expose this ersatz world is at great peril of being erased. The bottom line: The establishment physicists cannot handle the truth!

Completely devoid of true scientific imagination, true scientific honesty and true intellectual generosity, these dweebs live in their own make-believe world of their own make-believe superiority.

Do you need any further proof that the Priory will squelch any criticism of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics – just as Ebbie promised in that Committee meeting room?

This is a matter that simply cannot be raised - any more than you can raise the idea of Evolution with the Creationists.

The Priory. Be afraid! Very afraid!

Posted 3 March 2005





Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann
WHAT THEY DID: Got a carried away with a fantastic discovery that turned out to be wrong
WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM: Their lives were destroyed
WHO DID THIS: The physics establishment
WHAT THE WORLD MEDIA DID: Intensely ridiculed the two

Victor Ninov and Jan Hendrik Schoen
WHAT THEY DID: Cooked data
WHAT WAS DONE TO THEM: Their lives were destroyed
WHO DID THIS: The physics establishment
WHAT THE WORLD MEDIA DID: Tore the two up like a hungry wolf-pack

John C. Mather
WHAT HE DID: Spinned a miserably failed satellite experiment as the most precision measurement in the history of physics
WHO DID THIS: The physics establishment
WHAT THE WORLD MEDIA DID: Danced with him on their shoulder
WHAT HIS EMPLOYER DID: Appointed him America's top space scientist


Bob Dylan asks:

When you gonna wake up ...?

For further details please visit: