The 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics was given, in part, to:

1. John C. Mather, NASA

As I have shown, this was a fraudulent discovery. This means that NASA’s attempt to confirm the Cosmic Blackbody – for which earlier evidence was only sketchy – has failed. There is no Cosmic Blackbody. Because of this, the basis of the complementary discovery of his co-winner:

2. George F. Smoot, University of California, Berkeley

has disappeared.

The Nobel Prize for Physics in 1978 was given to:

3. Arno A. Penzias, Bell Laboratories
4. Robert R. Wilson, Bell Laboratories

The failure to confirm the Cosmic Blackbody has removed completely the stated basis on which this Prize was given. Read more…

In 2004 the Nobel Prize for Physics was given to:

5. Frank Wilczek, MIT
6. David J. Gross, University of California, Santa Barbara
7. H. David Politzer, CalTech

As has been shown by me, their discovery is highly questionable, and is by no means consummated. One of the reasons for this can be described in very simple terms. They fit their theory curve to measurement data. Exactly where they claim the agreement to be the most impressive is exactly where there is a pronounced “dip” feature (like an absorption line or a resonance, for example) in the data. One may try to explain it away as statistical scatter, but no self-respecting experimenter would. I suppose a Nobel Prize can be a great incentive for ignoring what the experimental evidence is clearly telling you.

There is a Zimbabwean proverb: That which has horns cannot be wrapped. These people tried to wrap a pointed dip with the sackcloth of statistics.

Notice the dip feature in both the diagrams at the abscissa value of about 175 (Click here for sharper image.) The theory curves are the continuous lines. Now, this dip feature may mean one of two things:

(a). It is an artifact of measurement/machine. In that case, as any good experimenter knows, the measurement data in this crucial region is all corrupted. Hence, the agreement of the theory with this data can mean only one thing: The theory is wrong.

(b). The dip feature represents real physics. In this case, this is thing that needed to be explained. The theory instead shown a straight line through here. Hence the theory is wrong.

If this type of agreement with experimental data qualifies as a grand discovery, then many an experimenter has probably left many a grand discovery on the lab floor. Here is no fraud. It is something far more sinister: The power of authoritative assertion. It is the physics establishment subliminally asserting to the masses, the way a magician-hypnotist may give you a dried cowpie and say: “Here, eat this sugar cookie.”

I do wish to belabor this point so that you get my point clear enough in your mind to not be swayed by the numerous physics oxdung artistes. Remember, their trick is to topple you off the solid pedestal of common sense. Once they have done that, they can do a job on you. Think thus: Since they applied statistics uniformly to the data, they did not recognized that there is a feature in the data. If they now try to somehow rationalize the feature in the context of their theory after the fact, they are immediately admitting that the discovery that Nobeled was questionable. They have no way out whatsoever.

Now consider this hypothetical scenario: An anthropologist and a mathematician team up to come up with a fantastic analytical expression (Bessel Functions and all) which, when plotted, produces the profile of the human head! The parameter G is for gender, R is for race, and T is for anthropological epoch. So, with the correct input parameters, it will produce the profile of an Australopithecus afarensis woman or a yak-herder in Tibet today. The wonder of wonders! Have you ever seen such impressive agreement between theory and experiment?! One teensy-weensy problem though – the expression does not reproduce the nose. There it is a flat line.

The above is a symbolic description of the quality of the 2004 Physics Nobel Prizes. Read more…

We have some poseurs and posturers walking on the stage in stark floodlight. I have given you special dark glasses. Put them on and you will see. The normal luminaries will look like naked people. The poseurs will look like strutting skeletons. There are seven skeletons, to be exact.

So there! Seven American Physics Nobel Prizes, gone with the wind!



Tags: ,

%d bloggers like this: