Talk:Edward Witten/Archive 1

Untitled
The text beginning "One proposed theory, Superstring, pushes the threshold of fairytales," is written in terrible English, is meaningless opinion rather than fact, and has nothing to do with Ed Witten. Please don't edit it back in again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.17.211 (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

should witten be cloned??!! imagine 100 wittens!

Hmmm... 'heralded', 'foremost', 'inspired', 'sparked' seem very colorful words. Could this gung-ho rave-up on an obviously very smart fellow be toned down somewhat? Infradig (andrew)


 * Clearly yes! I will try my best :-) --C S 06:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Removing "as the founder of M-theory" from the introductory bits. Two reasons: 1) M-theory is too technical a notion to belong in an introduction.  2) The story of how string theorists learned to think about strings is slightly complicated. Reducing it to "Witten founded it" doesn't do it justice.

I've removed "Witten's work combines deep physical insight with a remarkable command of modern mathematics." and replaced it with "Witten's extensive work in the area of theoretical physics has also involved a large number of highly mathematical results." Anyone reading this page can see he's done a lot of 'deeply insightful physics' and has 'a remarkable command of modern mathematics', as the title says, they are 'peacock' words. Altered the bit about his contributions so it doesn't imply he was the first to prove the Positive Energy Theorem and changed a few words about his low dimensional topology result to remove 'great' and replace it with 'wide ranging'. That seems slightly more neutral. AlphaNumeric 21:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND I INVITE ANYONE TO PROVE ME WRONG !!!

Santilli is the sole scientist in history who was capable of discovering a series of structural generalizations of pre-existing mathematics based on generalized units and products, and then apply them to a series of structural generalizations of physics, superconductivity, chemistry, biology, astrophysics and cosmology. By comparison, numerous other scientists discovered new “individual” mathematical structures (such as Hamilton and his quaternion, Jordan and his algebras, Lie and his theory), but not a comprehensive structural generalization of the entire mathematical and physical knowledge as achieved by Santilli. Numerous theories now carry his name, such as: Santilli’s isounits and isoproducts; Santilli’s iso-, geno-, and hyper-numbers and their isoduals; Hamilton-Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper mechanics; Lie-Santilli iso-, geno-, and hyper theories; Lorentz-Poincare’-Santilli iso-, geno-, and hyper-symmetry; Minkowski-Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper-geometries; Santilli’s iso-, geno-, and hyper-symplectic geometries; Heisenberg-Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper equations; Pauli-Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper matrices; Schroedinger-Santilli iso-, geno- and hyper-momentum; Santilli’s hadronic energy; Santilli’s magnecules; Santilli’s magnegas; etc. An inspection of the data-base on quotations indicate that Santilli is one of the most quoted author at this moment. Besides thousands of papers quoting Santilli, five monographs have been published by various authors with Santilli name in the title.The inclusion of vast plagiarisms of Santilli work in various scientific journals generally done in full knowledge of their editors (such as the river of papers on q-deformations without quotations of their origination by Santilli in 1967 and virtually all generalizations of Lie-quantum structures which are a particular case of Santilli’s Lie-admissible structures due to their proved direct universality), there is no “individual” scientist today whose influence on contemporary science can even partially compare with that by Santilli.86.151.65.55 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Foray into math/physics
The santilli Galilei Association on scientific truth http://www.santilli-galilei.com/StringTheory.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.47.6 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) September 29, 09. 2007 OPEN DENUNCIATION OF THE NOBEL FOUNDATION FOR HEADING AN ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC OBSCURANTISM

adressed to

The president of the United States of America

The...................................................

The....................................................

The........................etc etc

Dear Mr President

I feel an ethical duty to denounce publicly the Nobel Foundations for heading an organized scientific obscurantism bigger than that headed by the Vatican during Galileo's times. In the past several decades, the Nobel Foundation has headed organized academic interests intent in maintaining the status quo in physics and chemistry for the purpose of securing financial rewards, prestige and academic power. In the following, we shall document a systematic pattern according to which, whenever there are growing doubts on any given orthodox conjecture, the Nobel Foundation grants a prize for the seemingly studious intent of preserving questionable pre-existing doctrines in disrespect of mankind's need for basic advances.

The Statute of the Nobel Foundation [1] establishes in several articles the need to be vigilant about the granting of Nobel Prizes. By allowing itself to be used by organized interests on pre-established doctrines in physics and chemistry, the Nobel Foundation is in violation of its own Statute and grossly deviates from the original goals of its Founder intended to provide prioritarian rewards to innovation and advances for the benefit of society, rather than preserving the status quo and supporting academic power. Additionally, the Nobel Foundation used to be seen by young scholars as a guide and inspiration toward excellence and dedication to scientific ideals, while nowadays the Nobel Foundations is generally perceived as not rewarding (or actually discouraging) novelty and relevance for society, in favor of organized interests in physics and chemistry.

The scientific obscurantism during Galileo's times meanly dealt with religious dogmas, while the ongoing obscurantism deals with billions of dollars of public funds spent every year in physical and chemical research by developed and developing countries. Additionally, the obscurantism during Galileo's times had no impact on the lives of the people, since it dealt with the issue whether or not the Earth was moving. By comparison, the ongoing scientific obscurantism threatens the very survival of our planet, since it impedes an orderly and collegial resolution of the increasingly alarming climactic changes in our planet. The well known (but unspoken) roots of the ongoing scientific obscurantism are the following:

All Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry have been granted to date, and continue to be granted, in support of minute, at times inconsistent or purely fictitious applications the 20-th century doctrines, rather than supporting the surpassing of said doctrines for the benefit of society as per Statute [1] and original intent of the Nobel Foundation.

A scientific obscurantism of historical proportions then emerges because old doctrines are now applied under conditions for which they were not intended for; due to the credibility of the Nobel Foundation, all funding is restricted to research strictly verifying quantum mechanics, quantum, chemistry and Einstein doctrines; and all qualified research on basically new advances are discredited, jeopardized, disrupted, or dismissed while being excluded from the backing of of Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry.

The ongoing scientific obscurantism has been brought to the attention of the Nobel Foundation in a progressive way over several years, initiating first with confidential communications to high ranking officers of the Foundation, then with respectful public presentations, such as the Open Letter to Prof. BENGT NAGEL, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of 1998 [2] and other communications available in the press or in the web.

The complete oblivion by the Nobel Foundation of these respectful appeals caused the initiation of open denounciations by qualified scholars, such as that in the recent book [3] by Prof. Jeremy Dunning Davies of the University of Hull, England (mailed to the Nobel Foundation in a draft form for suggestions without response), and other denunciations now going on in various countries.

The lack of consideration by the Nobel Foundations of uncompromisable and vital needs by mankind compels the public character of this additional denounciations for international distribution as wide as possible.

There is no doubt that quantum mechanics, quantum chemistry and Einsteinian doctrines allowed historical advances in the 20-th century, and they are indeed exactly valid for the physical conditions of their original conception, quite limpidly expressed by Einstein in his writing as consisting of point-like particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum. However, any belief in their final character for all remaining conditions existing in the universe is sheer manipulation of scientific knowledge for sinister personal gains due to numerous limitations nowadays known even to the general public, let alone fully known by experts (see, e.g. the Forum on Old Theories of the Institute for Basic Research in Florida [4]).

As one, among too many limitations, quantum mechanics and special relativity were conceived for the atomic structure in which field they did result to be exactly valid. A necessary condition for such a historical success was that their mathematical structure and physical axioms had to be reversible over time (invariant under time reversal t => -t) because the time reversal image of the electron orbits in an atomic structure is causal, namely, the physical conditions for the exact validity of quantum mechanics and Einsteinian theories are reversible over time.

Yet, all energy releasing processes are irreversible over time (that is, their time reversal image violates causality laws). Hence, any belief that quantum mechanics and Einsteinian theories are exactly valid for energy releasing process is scientific corruption (particularly when ventured by experts) because the validity of covering theories should indeed be debated, but not their need. In fact, graduate students in physics have proved that quantum mechanics and special relativity predict a finite probability for the spontaneous disintegration of a nucleus n_3 => n_1 + n _2 following its synthesis n_1 + n_2 => n_3, in drastic disagreement with physical reality. The manipulation of knowledge is generally perpetrated by using the probability of the synthesis in support of old theories while suppressing the probability of the spontaneous decay because it would prove the catastrophic inconsistency of quantum mechanics and Einsteinian theories in the field.

A fully similar situation occurs for quantum chemistry because this discipline too is structurally reversible over time, thus being indeed applicable for reversible systems (such as molecular structures with severe limitations recalled below), being but catastrophically inconsistent when maintained for money, power and prestige as valid for irreversible processes, such as chemical reactions. At any rate, other graduate students have proved that quantum chemistry admits a finite probability for the spontaneous decomposition of the water molecule H_2O => H_2 + O following its synthesis H_2 + O -> H_2O. Again, th synthesis of the water and other substances is indeed studied via quantum chemistry, but the prediction of their spontaneous disintegration is suppressed to impose preferred theories via academic power and abuse of credibility.

A covering of quantum mechanics and special relativity into a structurally irreversible form suitable for the prediction, quantitative treatment and industrial realization of new energies and fuels was proposed in 1978 by Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli( Curriculum Vitae et studiorum) when at Harvard University under contract with the U. S. Department of Energy [5]. The covering theories are today known as hadronic mechanics and hadronic relativity, where the word "hadron" stands to denote that they have been constructed, specifically, to represent dynamics within the hyperdense medium in the interior of hadrons, or to be applicable, in general, at mutual distances of particles of the order of one Fermi. More recently, hadronic mechanics has has allowed the construction of an irreversible covering of quantum chemistry under the name of hadronic chemistry that at least possesses the necessary axiomatic structure for a credible studies of irreversible chemical reactions and other chemical processes.

Recommendation of Prof. Santilli for the Nobel Prize in Physics were initiated in 1984, and were more recently joined with recommendations for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Since the technical documentation of these nominations has been ignored by the Nobel Foundation due to the granting of prizes in physics and chemistry under lack of solid foundations, the recommendations of Prof. Santilli for the 2007 Nobel Prizes in Physics and Chemistry have been rendered public [6,7] so as to prevent the Nobel Foundation from claiming lack of knowledge of their technical content.

To understand the need for this open denounciations, it is necessary to recall the incredible scientific oppression perpetrated against Prof. Santilli by the physicists of the Lyman Laboratory of Physics at Harvard University for the clear intent of attempting to discourage him from pursuing a generalization of quantum mechanics and Einstein's special relativity. As one can see in the historical book [8] and related three volumes of documentation [9], Prof. Santilli was invited to apply for a grant by the U. S. Department of Energy when he joined Harvard University, but said physicists (identified with real names in refs. [8.9]) forced him to remain without any income for the entire academic year 1978-1979, even though he was the recipient of a U. S. Federal Grant and had two children in tender age to feed and shelter. It was only one year later, at the edge of an international scandal, that Prof. Santilli was moved to the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University and was finally authorized to activate said DOE grants.

The episodes of scientific oppression by the physicists of the Cantabridgean area against Prof. Santilli and his research reached hardly believable (but fully documented) extremes even after he left Harvard University [8,9], and included the participation of "leading" universities around the world. These documented cases of organized scientific obscurantism had to be recalled here because the restrictions by the Nobel Foundation of the nominations for Nobel Prizes solely to those submitted by Harvard University and similar "leading" institutions would guarantee the continuation of a scientific obscurantism of historical proportions. In fact, it is beyond any possible doubt that recommendations for Nobel prizes by Harvard University, Princeton University, and similar "leading" universities around the world are certainly restricted to research fully subservient to pre-existing doctrines. As such, such recommendations are, ab initio, in violation of the Statute of the Nobel Foundation as recalled earlier.

Needless to say, under a serious scientific democracy, recommendations by organized interests on pre-existing doctrines should indeed be considered by the Nobel Foundation. The point is the restriction of seriously considered nominations solely to those submitted by "leading" academic institutions would assure the perpetration of scientific misconduct by the Nobel Foundation of historical proportions.

Let us now pass from the above introductory lines to concrete cases of organized scientific obscurantism at the Nobel Foundations by inspecting some of the recent Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry and showing their essentially political character due to the unsettle character of the hypotheses and conjectures under which the prizes were granted.

RECENT NOBEL PRIZES IN PHYSICS The Nobel Prize in Physics 2006 to Prof. John C. Mather and Prof. George F. Smoot "for their discovery of the blackbody form and anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2005 to Prof. Roy J. Glauber "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence". The Nobel Prize in Physics 2005 to Prof. John L. Hall and Prof. Theodor W. Hänsch. "for his contribution to the quantum theory of optical coherence" "for their contributions to the development of laser-based precision spectroscopy, including the optical frequency comb technique" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2005/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2004 to prof. David J. Gross, Prof. H. David Politzer and Prof. Frank Wilczek "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2004/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2003 to Prof. Alexei A. Abrikosov, Prof. Vitaly L. Ginzburg and Prof. Anthony J. Leggett "for pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2003/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2002 to Prof. Raymond Davis Jr. and Prof. Masatoshi Koshiba "for pioneering contributions to astrophysics, in particular for the detection of cosmic neutrinos" and to Prof. Riccardo Giacconi "for pioneering contributions to astrophysics, which have led to the discovery of cosmic X-ray sources" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2002/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2001 to prof. Eric A. Cornell, Prof. Wolfgang Ketterle and Prof. Carl E. Wieman, "for the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2001/

The Nobel Prize in Physics 2000 to prof. Zhores I. Alferov and Prof. Herbert Kroemer "for basic work on information and communication technology" "for developing semiconductor heterostructures used in high-speed- and opto-electronics" and to Prof. Jack S. Kilby "for his part in the invention of the integrated circuit" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2000/

COMMENTS It should be indicated that all the above recipients of Nobel Prizes are indeed excellent and serious scholars who have dedicated their lives to the selected field and, as such, they ARE NOT the subject of these comments. The aspect here considered is the way the Nobel Foundation has used them for the pursuit of political interests in science.

A first case is given by the use of the word "neutrino" in the very motivation of the Nobel Prize in Physic s for the year 2002. It is necessary to denounce that the Nobel Foundation granted this Nobel Prize for the specific intent of maintaining the validity of Einsteinian doctrines in a which in which and at a time in which there were growing doubts. Whether intentional or not, that the implication.

Neutrinos were invented by Pauli and Fermi to salvage quantum mechanics in the synthesis of the neutron as occurring in the core of stars, from protons and electrons (because the spin 1/2 of the neutron cannot be accounted for by quantum mechanics as a bound state of two particles, the proton and the electron, each having spin 1/2, since fractional angular momenta are prohibited by quantum mechanics). The Pauli-Fermi neutrinos were given by one massless and chargeless particle with spin 1/2 and its antiparticle. The literature of the first half of the 20-th century contains serious scientific statements to the effect that the neutrinos could not be directly detected due to their features.

Then, to maintain the validity of quantum mechanics for strong interactions, neutrinos had to be incorporated into the standard model, at which point science saw a sequence of unverifiable conjectures each one proffered in support of a preceding unverifiable conjecture, thus demanding political backing from the Nobel Foundation for its credibility. In fact, the original two neutrinos were first increased to six different neutrinos without any credible differences (the electron., muon and tau neutrinos and their antiparticles); then things did not turn out as expected and there was the additional conjecture that the hypothetical neutrinos have hypothetical masses; then things were still unsettled and there was the further conjecture that the hypothetical neutrinos have different hypothetical masses, namely, physicists threw into the equations arbitrary parameters, fitted them from the data, called them masses, consequently claimed from "the fit of experimental data" that quantum mechanics and Einsteinian doctrines are valid in the field. The need for political backing by the Nobel Foundation for credibility is obvious, since numerous physicists outside the ring of financial income in the field, have never accepted the above sequence of unverified and unverifiable conjectures are final scientific knowledge.

The granting of a Nobel Prize in Physics of 2002 for the "detection of cosmic ray neutrinos" is purely political and against serious science, for several reasons:

1) The neutrino conjecture is unsettled;

2) Neutrinos cannot be detected directly;

3) At best one could state the detection of particles "predicted" by neutrino conjectures, but the statement of detection of cosmic rays neutrino is strictly nonscientific;

4) Neutrino conjectures are not unique, since there exist alternative theories without the neutrino conjectures of which the Nobel Foundation cannot credibly claim lack of knowledge; and

5) The use of extremely few events over an extremely large number of events cannot possibly have scientific credibility for any Prize.

Above all, the granting of a Nobel Prize in Physics in support of the politics underlying the neutrino conjectures was mandated by the lack of credibility of the religious belief that massive particles can cross entire planets, stars and galaxies without any collision! In other words, Pauli and Fermi maintained their scientific integrity with the conjecture that the hypothetical neutrino could cross entire planets and stars without collision due to their massless and chargeless character, but this credibility is lost in favor of a political manipulation of science when the hypothetical neutrinos are claimed to have different hypothetical masses.

There are additional reasons for this public denounciations because Nobel Foundation simply cannot ignore them and then expect impunity. It is known by experts since 1978 [5] that the Pauli-Fermi conjecture of the neutrino DID NOT salvage the validity of quantum mechanics for the neutron synthesis, because the rest energy of the neutron is 0.78 MeV BIGGER than the sum of the rest energies of the proton and the electron in the reaction p + e => n + v. In this case, the Schroedinger equation does not admit physically meaningful solutions because the synthesis would need a POSITIVE binding energy (physicists who do not know this are suggested to go back to first year graduate studies in quantum mechanics). In fact, ALL consistent quantum bound states (such as nuclei, atoms and molecules) have a NEGATIVE binding energy. Note that the conjugate reaction, p + e + anti(v) => n to provide the missing energy is instantly disqualified as scientific corruption since the hypothetical antineutrinos have no appreciable scattering cross section with protons and electrons. Note also that, assuming 0.78 MeV are somewhat located, there is no energy left for the hypothetical neutrino.

The clear inapplicability of quantum mechanics for the synthesis of the neutron then suggested in 1978 the construction of the covering hadronic mechanics that did indeed reach decades ago an exact representation of ALL features of the neutron via an electron totally immersed within the hyperdense medium inside the proton. In particular, these studied established the lack of any need for the hypothetical neutrinos because, at the covering level of hadronic mechanics, half-odd-integer values of the angular momenta are indeed allowed while preserving causality. The electron is merely forced to have an orbital momentum equal to the proton spin (otherwise the electron should move inside and against the hyperdense medium within the proton). In this view, the total angular momentum of Rutherford's electron is null (due to the antiparallel character of the electron spin and angular momentums), and the spin of the neutron coincides with that of the proton, without any need of conjecturing hypothetical undetectable particles and while representing numerically, exactly and invariantly ALL characteristics of the neutron (including some that cannot be represented with the standard model, such the charge radius, the density and the meanlife).

In view of the above, there is a growing international consensus that the Nobel Foundation granted the Nobel Prizes in Physics of 2002 on "the "detection of cosmic ray neutrinos" (!) for the specific intent of maintaining the validity of quantum mechanics and special relativity under conditions for which they are known to be inapplicable. At any rate, the Nobel Foundation cannot dismiss qualified dissident views published in serious refereed journals [6.7] without risking a severe condemnation by posterity due to the social implications here at stake.

The neutron is one of the biggest reservoirs of clean energies available to mankind because it decays spontaneously (when isolated or member of certain nuclei) by emitting a highly energetic electron that can be easily trapped with a metal shield (plus the hypothetical neutrino that, in case it exists, it is innocuous). It is now know that the possibility of tapping these much needed new clean energies depends, crucially, on the the electron being a physical constituent of the neutron, of course, in ma mutated form quantitative described by hadronic mechanics [6]. It is equally known that this possibility of tapping much needed new clean energies is precluded if the n neutrino exists.

Hence, with the granting of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Physics for the "detection of cosmic rays neutrinos" (!) the Nobel Foundation de facto assassinated qualified research for new clean energies and fuels for the intent of serving organized interests on quantum mechanics and Einsteinian doctrines at Harvard University [8,9] and other "leading" universities around the world.

Another case that has to be publicly denounced, if we truly care about the future of our society, is that the Nobel Foundation granted the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics for the discovery of the asymptotic freedom in strong interactions for the specific purpose of maintaining the validity of Einsteinian doctrines within the structure of hadrons, this time in a different field and at a time that also was seen growing dissident views.

This particular Nobel Prize originated from the parallel political case dealing with the existence of quarks as physical particles in our spacetime [6]. As it is well known, the study of atoms required TWO models, the Mendeleev model of classification of atoms into families and the different yet compatible structure model permitted by quantum mechanics for each atom of a given family. By departing from this historical teaching, quark believers have recommended one single model for both the classification of hadrons into families and the structure of each hadron of a given family, with the following outcome:

i) Color SU(3) theories and the standard model have indeed achieved what appears to be the final Mendeleev-type CLASSIFICATION of hadrons into families;

ii) Quarks are widely accepted when scientifically defined as they are (mathematical representations of a mathematical unitary symmetry defined on a mathematical complex-valued space without any connection to our spacetime); but

iii) Quarks become sheer scientific manipulation when assumed as physical particles in our spacetime for numerous reasons, such as:

A) It is known by experts that quarks cannot possible experience gravity since Albert Einstein clearly stated that gravitation only exists in our spacetime while quarks cannot be defined in our spacetime. Hence, the members of the Nobel Committee should have levitate in space while granting the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics of 2004 in the event their bodies were made up of quarks.

B) the confinement of quarks (necessary for quark believers due to their absence in our spacetime) is a purely political machination because the assumption of the exact validity of quantum mechanics in the interior of hadrons implies, from the uncertainty principle, that quarks have a finite probability of existing in the outside or being expelled by high energy collisions, a prediction in dramatic disagreement with experimental evidence;

C) In granting the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics, the Nobel essentially crossed the boundaries of science because it imposes via academic power the belief that, at the time of the synthesis of the neutron, the permanently stable proton and the electron "disappear" (sic!) from the universe to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks and then, additionally, at the time of the spontaneous decay of the neutron, the proton and the electron "reappear" (sic again!) by academic power and certainly not for physical veritas.

A high ranking institution such as the Nobel Foundation cannot claim lack of knowledge of the above inconsistencies known nowadays even to the general public. Hence, the widespread view that the Nobel Prize in Physics of 2004 was granted for the studious intent of maintaining the belief of quarks as physical particles in our spacetime, that is, in maintaining the validity of quantum mechanics inside hadrons. This claimed political intent was motivated by growing dissident views favoring the covering hadronic mechanics, including numerous Nobel. nominations in favor of the latter approach of which the Nobel Foundation cannot credibly claim lack of knowledge [6].

Most unreassuringly, in granting the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics the Nobel Foundation disrupted qualified studies on new clean energies for the evident reasons that no possibility whatever exists for tapping the energy inside the neutron in the event its constituents are the hypothetical quarks, while the possibility is real in the event quarks are what they are, mathematical representation of a mathematical symmetry in a mathematical space without connection with our spacetime. These unreassuring social implications of equivocal political prizes granted by the Nobel Foundations then mandated this public denounciation as a necessary condition for the survival of serious science.

Additionally, we have to denounce the granting of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics on the Bose-Einstein condensation for exactly the same sinister intent as the preceding two cases, maintaining the validity of Einsteinian doctrines at a time of growing dissident views, although in a different field.

A notorious trend in particle physics is to throw into the equations unknown parameters, fit them from the experimental data, and then claim that quantum ,mechanics and Einsteinian doctrines are exactly valid. The case of the Bose Einstein correlation and condensation crosses the boundary of science to raise issues of accountability under the use of public funds that should be addressed in court. The fit of the data for the two point correlation function of the Bose-Einstein correlation requires FOUR arbitrary and unknown parameters (called "chaoticity parameters"). Legal issues are raised by the fact that the Hamiltonian for the two point functions is TWO-DIMENSIONAL, thus being solely able to account for TWO parameters. Additionally, the missing parameters mix off-diagonal terms, which mixing is notoriously prohibited by the quantum axioms of the vacuum expectation values of a Hermitean Hamiltonian (technically, the vacuum expectation values are (11,22|H|11,22) = H_11 + H_22, the terms H_12 and H_21 being impossible for an operator that, to be observable, must be diagonal). I sincerely hope the serious scholar admits the crossing of science and the entering into issues pertaining to court since the ONLY scientific statement is the the unknown four chaoticity parameters are a direct measure of the DEVIATION of the Bose-Einstein correlation (and condensation) from Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics. The need to resolve the issue in court is requested because the notorious eloquence of corrupt academicians would turn into anguish when subpoenaed to testify in court, rather than in equivocal academic corridors.

Additionally, we have to denounce insisting rumors in high level, well informed academia that the Nobel Foundation is now considering a Nobel Prize in Physics for the conjecture of dark matter. The denounciations is due for the fact that the conjecture of dark matter was submitted for the well known, studious and pre-meditated intent of preserving the validity of Einsteinian doctrines for all possible conditions existing in the universe. In fact, the claim of missing matter is based on the use of the energy equivalence E = mc^2, namely, on the assumption of the validity of the speed of light throughout the universe. The problem for the Nobel, Foundation is that the lack of validity of the speed of light c inside hyperdense starts, quasars and black holes is known even to the general public. When the politics on Einsteinian doctrines is put aside, then there is no need for any dark matter because expressions of the type mC^2, for values of C inside hyperdense stars, quasars and black holes, can yield hundreds of times the values of E = mc^2 where c is the speed of light in vacuum. At any rate, the belief that a relativity verified for point-=particles and electromagnetic waves moving in vacuum is also necessarily exact of the interior of hyperdense stars., quasars and black holes (where light may not propagate at all!) is excessively ascientific and asocial to deserve any respect.

Similar equivocal situations occur for ALL Nobel Prizes in Physics ultimately dependent on theories applied under conditions they were not originally intended for.

RECENT NOBEL PRIZES IN CHEMISTRY The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2006 to prof. Roger D. Kornberg "for his studies of the molecular basis of eukaryotic transcription" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2006/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2005 to Prof. Yves Chauvin, Prof. Robert H. Grubbs and Prof. Richard R. Schrock "for the development of the metathesis method in organic synthesis" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2005/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2004 to Prof. Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Prof. Irwin Rose "for the discovery of ubiquitin-mediated protein degradation" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2004/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2003 to prof. Peter Agre "for discoveries concerning channels in cell membranes" "for the discovery of water channels" to Prof. Roderick MacKinnon "for structural and mechanistic studies of ion channels" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2003/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2002 to Prof. John B. Fenn and Prof. Koichi Tanaka "for the development of methods for identification and structure analyses of biological macromolecules" and "for their development of soft desorption ionisation methods for mass spectrometric analyses of biological macromolecules" and to Prof. Kurt Wüthrich "for his development of nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy for determining the three-dimensional structure of biological macromolecules in solution" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2002/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2001 to Prof. William S. Knowles and Prof. Ryoji Noyori "for their work on chirally catalysed hydrogenation reactions" and to Prof. K. Barry Sharpless "for his work on chirally catalysed oxidation reactions" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2001/

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2000 to Prof./ Alan J. Heeger, Prof. Alan G. MacDiarmid and Prof. Hideki Shirakawa "for the discovery and development of conductive polymers" http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/2000/

COMMENTS The condition of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry is perhaps more serious than that of Nobel Prizes in Physics because quantum chemistry is dramatically less quantitative then physics, thus leaving the validity of any given chemical theory to academic power, rather than veritas.

The limitations of quantum chemistry are simply appalling, since the very notion of valence electron bond is prohibited by quantum axioms (two identical electrons are predicted by quantum axioms to repel and not to attract each other); the lack of a serious valence bond allows orbitals to be oriented under an external magnetic field, with the consequential prediction that all substances are paramagnetic in dramatic disagreement with reality; the use of quantum chemistry for thermodynamical calculations borders scientific corruption due to excessive insufficiencies and deviations of the prediction of the theory with experimental data (see, e.g., the Forum on Old Theories [1][ for more limitations)

At any rate, graduate students have calculated the finite probability predicted by quantum chemistry that the water molecule admits a spontaneous decomposition H_2O => H_2 + O following its synthesis H_2 + O => H_2O, a prediction beyond possible doubt because all formulations of quantum chemistry and its underlying mathematics are strictly reversible over time. It is hoped that this limitation alone establishes the inability of quantum chemistry to solve the pressing environmental problems facing mankind today.

The Nobel Committee for Chemistry cannot deny knowledge of the above limitations, first of all because known by all experts, but also because contained in various nominations of the covering hadronic chemistry [7], such as, for instance, nomination [7] that must now be disclosed to defend science.

When Nobel Prizes in Chemistry are inspected under the above limitations of the underlying theory, ALL of them emerge to have one or another political motivation even though again the recipients were outstanding scholars who did their best.

One case must be openly denounced because excessively political and ascientific. It is the case of the so-called screened Coulomb law. In short, after about one century of studies it became evident that quantum axioms did allow an exact representation of the experimental data of ONE hydrogen atom, but the same axioms missed about 2% of the binding energy of TWO hydrogen atoms when composing the hydrogen molecule, with incredible deviations (generally suppressed in Ph.D. teachings and scientific papers) for more complex molecules.

In view of the above insufficiency, serious scholars proposed the only solution possible at the time, namely, the multiplication of the Coulomb law by an arbitrary function, V(r) = qQ/r => V*(r) = f(r) dQ/r. The function f(r) was fitted then from the experimental data, thus assuring a good representation.

The political problem was that, at the time of the screening of the Coulomb law, the exact validity of quantum, chemistry had been put in doubt by qualified scholars in refereed scientific journals. The only possible difference between one hydrogen atom and two hydrogen atoms in the H_2 molecule;e is the appearance in the latter (only) of nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential interactions caused by the deep wave overlappings of the two electrons in the H_2 valence bond. These interactions are beyond any possible representation by quantum chemistry, but are fully represented indeed by the covering hadronic chemistry that did indeed achieve an EXACT and INVARIANT representation of the binding energy of the H_2 and other molecules from unadulterated first principles (see the technical literature of nomination [7]).

Whether by studious intent, or by a coincidence, we saw the granting of Nobel Prizes in Chemistry directly or indirectly dependent on the screening of the Coulomb law. Again, the recipients were indeed outstanding scholars who did their best. The occurrence unfortunate for mankind was their manipulation by the Nobel Foundations to claim the continued validity of quantum chemistry while graduate students know that the quantum of energy is indeed possible for the Coulomb potential V(r) = qQ/r but absolutely impossible for adulterated potentials such as V*(r) = f(r) qQ/r [the scholar in good faith may note that the map V(r) => V*(r) is necessarily NONUNITARY, because the Coulomb potential is a central invariant of quantum mechanics, as a result of which all possible screenings of the Coulomb law are trivial particular cases of the covering hadronic chemistry due to its nonunitary structure].

In closing, I take the liberty of submitting one suggestion to the Nobel Foundation: rather than granting Nobel Prizes heading for a possible severe condemnation by posterity due to their excessively political character, the Nobel Foundation should ABSTAIN from granting any prize.

Acknowledgments. I would like to thank Prof. R. M. Santilli for invaluable technical assistance in the preparation of this denunciation. Regrettably, I am not at liberty of thanking numerous additional scholars around the world who supported this denounciations for fear that they would be victims of the same oppressive scientific obscurantism and disruption of personal life perpetrated by Harvard University against Prof. Santilli [8.9].

Dr Carlo Marafioti Presidente of the Santilli-Galilei association on scientific truth

REFERENCES

[1] Statute of the Nobel Foundation

[2] Open Letter to Prof. BENGT NAGEL, Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Physics of 1998

[3] Jeremy Dunning Davie (University of Hull, England), Exploding a Myuth, Horwood in (2007).

[4] IBR Forum on Old Theories

[5] R. M. Santilli, "On a possible Lie-admissible covering of the Galilei Relativity for nonconservative and Galilei form-noninvariant systems, Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge MA Hadronic J. Vol. 1, 223-423 (l978), and addendum Vol. 1, 1279-1342 (l978); and "Need for subjecting to an experimental verification the validity within a hadron of Einstein's Special Relativity and Pauli's Exclusion Principle, Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA Hadronic J. Vol. 1, 574-902 (l978); research conducted under DOE contracts numbers ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER10651; DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002 administered by Harvard University (see Refs. [8,9] for documenmtation).

[6] Nomination of Prof. R. M. Santilli for the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physics

[7] Nomination of Prof. R. M. Santilli for the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

[7] Nomination of Prof. R. M. Santilli for the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry [8] R. M. Santilli, Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the U. S. A. : An Insider's View, The Santilli-Galileo Association on Scientific Truth

[9] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volumes I, II and III, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA (1985) (Available from the U. S. Library of Congrtess, Washington, D/ C.).

NOTE: Comments by qualified scholars are welcome for uploading in this web site, propvided that they are mailed in writing on a letterhead at the address below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.169.120 (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

CLONING

Re : Iso-Grand-Unification of gravitation and electroweak interactions.

The grand unifications by Witten and others ( which are known to be catastrophically inconsistent, because they have a noncanonical/nonunitary structure UU+ =/ 1, under which any first year graduate student can prove that all numerical predictions n are noninvariant in time, n' = UnU+ = nUU+ =/ n, thus having no physical value of any known type ) should be a warning to the various indoctrinations of Religious style kind of Physics !! and be a reference point to all man of science to refrain from “cloning anyone” !! 86.133.118.197 14:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If my Gran Mother would be alive today she would be happy to know that the her theories in spirits and gosts is now been made a science by the maestros of strings with maths that they have developed but do not understand !! in such a reality What hope do we have !!?? 86.133.118.197 11:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this question asked in various places but I've never found a really satisfactory answer. So, he studied history and linguistics, then did a little economics and a little politics. Then all of a sudden he decided he wanted to do math, applied to Princeton, and got in. Had he ever done math before, e.g. in college? Was it just that much easier to get into Princeton's math grad program back then? Was he so obviously brilliant that anyone who talked to him would want him in their grad program, no matter the subject? Was it a combination of these things, or something else? I'd be curious to know. Lewallen 00:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am curious too about what the previous comment says. Why was he accepted to Princeton?--190.188.3.11 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Jewish?
Is he? 85.64.74.117 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * he is the incarnation of God. Witten Is God 23:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, he's Jewish. -lethe talk [ +] 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a citation?
 * I do happen to know that he's jewish, but not because I have a newspaper article which says so in my hands. -lethe talk [ +] 15:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

can't someone get a better picture?
maybe somebody can take an updated picture of him?
 * Uploaded afew (one quite good) today. Take a peek at the Commons :) --Ojan (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

academic studies uncertainty
So he started off in his BA as an historian...when and How did he manage to come into the realm of physics..? This is Not Very clear. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 16:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article talks a little about Witten's history: http://www.colby.edu/colby.mag/issues/84n3/ivory.html. Apparently he tried many different things before settling on physics.

more trivia
I believe he was interviewed for the book The End of Science. It is a popular work that might expose a younger person to his work etc.  Casey208.53.88.146 03:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo change
I'm sorry, but the previous head shot of him didn't do him justice. I took the liberty of changing it. Ahm2307

RS2007
I am RS. I want to make this article on Witten one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I will divide this article into several sections and add references. RS2007 08:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is a bright guy
Witten is noted as being bright, just how bright is still being debated, but a note to the page that he is being considered and so others can contribute. This is wikipedia after all and it is great because it is democratic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoddyYoung (talk • contribs) 23:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

citing sources
It seems to me that the article needs considerably more explicit source citations regarding biographical info, as per WP:CITE and WP:BLP? Regards, Nsk92 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lenard Susskind (and other string theorists) admit (Joseph Polchinski admits him being "so much smarter than the rest" of them) to having not been able to follow Witten's ideas during their conference in 1995 at Univ. of Southern California when he (Witten) introduced M Theory. This may be a clue to how really bright he is. The vid's on YouTube: The Elegant Universe III - Welcome to the 11th Dimension (I cannot find the exact link. I downloaded the video already but when I searched using the same keywords in YouTube, I landed in unfamiliar territory I mean the names of the parts of the video weren't the same already, they were renamed.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.111.237.10 (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The life of his kids
Is it really relevant to put information about where his children went to high school and where they plan to go to grad school? That sounds sick to me. 15:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The prediction to be confirmed from L. H. C.
Interested in Ed's feelings on what humanity will find from the Large Hardron Collider.

Physicist or mathematician?
I've just reverted an edit that changed the first sentence of the article to say that Witten is mathematician rather than a physicist. Undeniably he has made deep contributions to both fields, but Witten himself calls himself a physicist, as do his employers, and most of his publications (e.g., "S-Duality of Boundary Conditions In N=4 Super Yang-Mills Theory" from last month) are well within the domain of physics. We mathematicians would love to claim him, but it wouldn't be accurate! Ishboyfay (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How he shifted from history to physics?
Anybody knows how he shifted from an undergraduate history degree to a graduate physics degree?!!!

He is currently the "Charles Simonyi" Professor of Mathematical Physics
Could this be explained in the article or removed if not relevant? Charles Simonyi points to a software engineer. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Known for?
I'm not an expert but isn't Witten known for more.. F.ex. Weinberg-Witten_theorem? Thγmφ (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverting edits
I noticed that 78.69.212.77 made some changes to the article. I'm reverting some of these changes for the following reasons.


 * I'm changing the phrase "Witten's work has appeared in pure mathematics" in the lead back to "Witten's work has significantly impacted pure mathematics". Not only is the latter statement is fully supported by the citation, but it also makes more sense. Saying that Witten's work has "appeared in" pure mathematics suggests that Witten has published in pure mathematics journals. In fact, virtually all of his work appears in physics literature and does not respect the conventions and standards of rigor used in pure mathematics.


 * I'm changing the phrase "Maldacena's result has appeared in theoretical physics for the past 15 years" back to "Maldacena's result has dominated theoretical physics for the past 15 years". This statement is both appropriate and accurate since the three original articles on AdS/CFT are also the three most highly cited articles in high energy physics (see http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2010/eprints/to_hep-th_annual.shtml).


 * Saying that Witten's work on the AdS/CFT correspondence is "foundational" is not spam, although I can understand how it might seem that way. This word is simply meant to emphasize that his paper on AdS/CFT works out the foundations of the subject.


 * It is entirely accurate to say that the Seiberg-Witten paper is "well known". At the moment, according to Google Scholar, it has over 3,000 citations.

Polytope24 (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I did not perform the edits that you reverted, but I think that the statement "Maldacena's result has dominated theoretical physics for the past 15 years" is wrong since theoretical physics is much larger than the field in which Maldacena's work is relevant. For example, as far as I know in theoretical condensed matter physics Maldacena's work is completely irrelevant. I suggest to replace the term "theoretical physics" in that sentence by a more specific description of the "dominated" scientific field. GreSebMic (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Non rigorous results
I wonder if any of you guys may help locate the mentioned paper in: The authors mention five results Witten depends on his arguments, none of which are "rigorous by mathematical standards".
 * For example, Ed Witten recently derived a formula for Donaldson invariants on Kähler manifolds using a twisted version of supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions:

The first one is the Yang–Mills existence and mass gap, one of the Millennium Prize Problems. I wonder if it is possible to find better sources for the non-rigorousness of the rest four. And is this list of five results comprehensive? Ping, ,. Solomon7968 12:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Edward Witten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722035239/http://www.ilcrotonese.it/notizia.asp?IDNotizia=10957&IDCategoria=8 to http://www.ilcrotonese.it/notizia.asp?IDNotizia=10957&IDCategoria=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward Witten. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160607043423/http://consejoculturalmundial.org/announcement-of-2016-winners/ to http://consejoculturalmundial.org/announcement-of-2016-winners/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why Does Witten show up on lists of famous vegans?
I have seen nothing supporting this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:566:9C00:B4C1:ACDC:EA9D:F064 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Phenotype
Why isn't there a section in this article about Ed Witten's phenotype? He has what women crave! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B81C:9562:F82B:B12A:51B1:B7A5 (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Intro section is underwhelming
I don't expect wikipedia to take this seriously, but hear me out. For the last 35-ish years, Witten has been unanimously recognized as a trendsetter, if not a visionary, in high-energy theoretical physics. Even his critics recognize his ability to steer the entire physics community. I think the introduction to this article completely skips over making that clear to a reader, whereas there are many other physicists' sites that completely overstate their physicist's impact -- take for instance the articles of Abdus Salam, Gordon Kane, John Ellis, or Leonard Susskind. Doesn't Witten deserve an equally (if not more) epic intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.135.217 (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Many of his students are not mentioned
To see the complete list of Witten's students look at:

http://inspirehep.net/search?cc=HepNames&p=701%3A%22Witten,%20Edward%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.186.212 (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)