Tonight, there are at least four unprofessionally looking, incorrect papers on gr-qc and hep-th.

On gr-qc, an author from Chicago with a dot-com address derives the masses of all elementary particles. His groundbreaking idea is based on Kaluza-Klein theory but he only cites Dirac and Georgi+Glashow. The physicist calculates the masses of all elementary fermions using a simple square-root formula. Because the results disagree, among many other things, with the known properties of the

*s,c,b,t*quarks, the author predicts that these quarks probably don't exist.

On hep-th, there are two papers about an unusual mechanism to generate masses for non-Abelian gauge bosons. One of them is short and the following one is longer. The author writes a non-local action for the massive gauge boson involving the inverse box. For U(1) gauge bosons, it is a standard textbook trick that creates an equivalent action. For non-Abelian gauge groups, one needs the inverse

*covariant*box which obviously leads to a non-polynomial and non-local theory that breaks down exactly where you expect problems with the unitarity of the WW-WW scattering.

It is a standard material from graduate courses of quantum field theory that one can make gauge bosons massive with extra Goldstone bosons that live in the group manifold. However, the non-linear sigma model is not renormalizable and breaks down at energies comparable to 4.pi.f where f is the decay constant. If we want the theory to be valid at higher energies, we must complete it and the Higgs mechanism is the only perturbative way to do it. The exchange of additional fields such as the Higgs helps to keep the WW to WW scattering unitary.

The statements in the paper claiming that the strange new theory can be proved to be perturbatively renormalizable must be incorrect. The microscopic source of the confusion is probably that the author does not appreciate how difficult it is to invert the covariant box. The only way how to complete the theory into a renormalizable theory is to effectively create new particles corresponding to the non-invertible modes of the covariant box - as long as these particles will interact just like the Higgses, and one obtains a theory equivalent to the standard spontaneous symmetry breaking.

In another paper, an author proposes a list of generic predictions of quantum gravity. It would be more accurate to call it a list of misconceptions inspired by sloppy thinking about quantum gravity - and it would be even more accurate to call it a list of reasons why all "alternative" attempts to define quantum gravity must be inconsistent. Neither of the bizarre effects is predicted by anything that could be called a theory of quantum gravity - and most likely, neither of the bizarre effects is even consistent with quantum gravity.

The list includes double special relativity, something that is known to be inconsistent with locality and additivity of energy, even with the approximate ones. Similar considerations show that doubly special relativity leads to the so-called soccer ball problem (thanks to a German physicist with a blog for explaining me the terminology): you can't kick a soccer ball if its total energy (including the latent one) is going to exceed the Planck energy - about a few micrograms. In fact, the soccer ball couldn't exist.

The second "general prediction" is that elementary particles are "coherent excitations of quantum geometry" that probably refers to a recent kindergarden theory that elementary particles are different octopi. Well, in reality, gravitons (and perhaps KK-photons) are coherent excitations of quantum geometry while other particles are excitations of something more general - and whether or not you call this more general thing (string theory) "geometry" is a matter of terminology. The third "general prediction" is that "locality is disordered".

The author also repeats many misconceptions about the quasinormal modes - such as the fantasy that they have something to do with the black hole entropy counting in loop quantum gravity. This fantasy has been known to be patently false for more than two years. In fact, it is wrong on all sides: the quasinormal frequencies are generally not what they needed to be according to the hypothesis; the entropy predicted by loop quantum gravity is not what it needed to be either; and the link between these two is completely unphysical.

The author of this particular paper always tells me that he understands my explanations why these things are safely known not to work. Then he returns home and writes another silly paper claiming that they do work. Sigh.

It could be a good new if true, Most crackpots are repetitive, so it can be controled by simply asking them to update their old papers if the research is "incremental" and not "new".

ReplyDeleteActually, it could be a good idea for some other not crackpotty workers, to ask them to update incremental papers if no good reason for a new one stands, or at least to note the "incremental" character in the Comments field.