by

Bibhas De

Copyright 2005 by Bibhas R. De

WELCOME!

GRAPHICS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

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 odd aspects of the 2004 Nobel Prize for Physics. The usual laudatory celebration has 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.

Overview

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 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.

Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.

- Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533-1592)

THE UNBRELLA OF A HALLOWED TRADITION:
AND WHAT CAN BE SNEAKED IN UNDER IT

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” 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.

THE BARBARIANS AT THE GATE:
INSURGENCY FROM WITHOUT

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.

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.

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 PRIORY:
BE AFRAID! VERY AFRAID!

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.

STEP ONE: LET’S GET ORGANIZED…

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.

STEP TWO: UNDERSTAND THE EDIFICE

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.

STEP THREE: EXAMINE 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 "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 reigns. 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:

A Secret Conference Room in Stockholm

(Curtain rises - Fade in)

Enter the Committee – Ebbie in tow.

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 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 then stand close to each other, and put a giant rubber band around their waist. When they walk away from each other, they will be pulled closer. They will have a pained expression on their faces. When they are 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 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. That way we are covered.

Erki: I think that is a good solution. 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)

STEP FOUR: SOAK IN THE HISTORY

You know Inspector Maigret, the French detective? He and his associates Luca, Janvier and LePointe 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.

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.

STEP FIVE: START THE DISASSEMBLY

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.

(2). Believe it because it has withstood the test of time.

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

(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.

(2). Believe it because it was very hard work (Cf. President George W. Bush)

(3). Believe it because it is now in the graduate level textbooks.

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.

STEP SIX: EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE

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:

====================

THE EVIDENCE

====================

(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:

==========================

COMMITTEE INTERPRETATION OF DATA

==========================

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.

==========================

MY INTERPRETIVE PREMISE

==========================

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 accuracy 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.

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 one could claim better than 1% agreement from this type of data.

(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 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 to pooh-pooh this right away, or you can pause to think.

If today you were making a theory ab initio, you would no more ignore peaks or troughs in experimental data than you would ignore the lobed structure of an antenna pattern.

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?

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

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.

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

Here then is my interpretation of the data:

====================================

MY INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA

====================================

At the low energy end (< 10 GeV), there is too much leeway in the data to permit any definitive conclusions from a single-theory comparison. At the high energy end, there are clear features in the data not explained by the theory. The highest energy data have a slope contrary to asymptotic freedom. Yet here is where the name 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.

But I do take my hats 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 to Eskimos;
- XXL tee shirts to Lilliputs;
- Long range domestic passenger jets to Lichtenstein;
-

Madison Avenue, Stand up and take note!

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.

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

STEP SEVEN: DIG DEEPER

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?

Lastly, and I mentioned this before, the official justification of the Prize is that it 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”. I have already told you about the British Royal Society. 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?

.

.

Posted 14 February 2005