
It is more than 50 years since any new theory of fundamental physics was published in a peer-reviewed journal, yet we have more professors of mathematical physics than ever before. Many of them have outstanding dexterity in solving the established equations of physics, but perhaps we need to pay a few organ grinders as well?
Since the times of Isaac Newton, it has been clear that nature is governed by mathematical laws. It is also clear that only about half of those laws have so far been discovered and published (2020). Many common phenomena (and many more that are reported from science laboratories) are not described by theoretical physics at all, while others are only very approximately described. It is a fact of psychology that we always overplay the importance of what little we know about a subject, but claiming today that there is little left to be discovered in fundamental physics is like putting ones head into a bucket of sand!
In spite of this, academic peer review (APR) is routinely being used to prevent the publication in journals of new theories in physics, even in those journals whose remit claims to include new and general theories. Obviously, most submissions will not be of an acceptable standard, but why are the new babies always being discarded with the bath water?
The only possible explanation is that the great majority of academic physicists do not want new theories to be published and that APR is their main tool for ensuring this. One of the greatest pioneers from the last generation of theoretical physicists (Prof. R.P. Feynman) was probably an instigator of this problem. He is widely remebered for three unfortunate maxims:-
- Nobody understands quantum mechanics (rather: QM is still an incomplete theory) - Shut up and calculate (rather: appreciate the math. before questioning the theory) - Anyone who questions special relativity cannot be a physicist (blinded by simplicity).
A less well-remembered quote from Feynman describes his optimism for theoretical physics:-
- We live in the age in which we are discovering the fundamental laws of nature, and that day will never come again (probably right - and this could explain why career academics are doing so much to prevent it).
We physicists like to make predictions. One of mine is that, when the evidence in favour of a new theory becomes overwhelming, these same academics will claim that it is obvious and they knew it all along! This is made more likely because many new theories built on the multi-metric idea resemble existing theories - but they enable us to go much further in their application, leading to logical completion. For example, the GEC shown on Home page 2 resembles the Schrödinger Equation; but it also implies the existence of hybrid connection algebas, such as the equations for the liquid state. Who knows how many other researchers have also discovered this? Isn't that what journals are for?
This difficulty is further compounded by the customary refusal of publishing houses to consider anything with scientific content, unless all of that content has previously been published in a journal with APR. Science fiction, on the other hand, faces no such barriers, so we can expect to read ever more multiverse nonsense!
Why bother to develop new fundamental theories?
We MUST do better than this today, because the need for progress in fundamental understanding is now critical to our survival. It is already too late to avoid the primary effects of global warming, but we still have time to develop the means to reverse this phenonemon, if they can be found.
With very few exceptions, the application of new fundamental theories has not led to short-term profits, making the initial investment hard to justify on economic grounds. However, their net economic value nearly always increases with time, such as the electronic technologies for example. This effect is well known by the governments of many industrialised countries, so why do they only give financial support to the monkeys? (Back to Home)
Robert Herrod
Örkelljunga, Sweden, July 2021