RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQEClaimsSources

Evans-Myron: central claims

Source note: both works (CEFE 2010, 548 pp.; Felker 2005, 373 pp.) were digested page by page. Deep reads cover CEFE Ch.2 Secs 2.7-2.9 (pp.49-66), Ch.3 Secs 3.5-3.11 and Ch.4 Secs 4.1-4.3 (plus the Reissner-Nordstrom and "Kerr" tables), and Felker Chs 9-12 (pp.203-250). Not given a deep read: most of the 62 Ch.4 metric tables, CEFE Ch.5, and Felker Chs 1-8 and 13-15. No peer-reviewed Evans papers and no experimental data are in the folder; statements about critics and about LIGO and Gravity Probe B results rest on the [web] sources in facts.json, and the rest on [memory]. Page numbers are PDF pages (CEFE printed page = PDF minus 8; Felker printed = PDF minus 6).

  1. The Einstein field equation is wrong because it assumes zero torsion, so it violates the dual (Hodge-dual) Bianchi identity D_mu T^kappa mu nu = R^kappa mu_mu nu; Einstein's symmetric connection was an elementary error (the connection must be antisymmetric). [read, CEFE preface, Ch.2, Ch.4]
  2. Computer algebra on 62 known metrics shows every solution with matter "violates" that identity, so general relativity is invalid; the book also says several well-known metrics failed metric compatibility and the cyclic identity. [read, CEFE Ch.4; deep read: the "charge and current densities" it tabulates are components of minus the contravariant Ricci tensor, so the test restates G = kT; the book names no failing metric and all 62 tables print "o.k."; two inputs (the "Kerr" metric, the Kruskal table) are not the exact solutions]
  3. Black holes, singularities, binary mergers, gravitational waves and the Big Bang are mathematically impossible because Schwarzschild's solution was misderived (Crothers) and gravitational energy cannot be localised; the book predicts in 2010 that LIGO is "destined to detect nothing", states that Gravity Probe B did not detect frame dragging, and adds that dark matter is unnecessary because spiral-galaxy curves follow from torsion (simulations not in the folder). [read, CEFE Ch.3 Secs 3.1-3.11 (pp.93-141), p.62, Ch.5; deep read of Secs 3.5-3.11 shows the replacement equation G/kappa + T = 0 reduces to R = 0 when T = 0, the Doughty acceleration is off by a factor 2, the "signature change" is not a change of signature, and the LIGO source cited is an upper-limit search]
  4. Electromagnetism is the torsion of spacetime (A = A(0) q, F = A(0) T), giving a generally covariant unified field theory (ECE); the Maxwell-Heaviside equations and gauge theory are incomplete. [read, CEFE Ch.2; Felker Intro, Chs 6-8]
  5. A nonzero spin connection makes the Coulomb/Poisson equation resonant, which explains Tesla's results and would let circuits (the Bedini motor) draw usable power from spacetime torsion without violating energy conservation; an "electrogravitic" relation E = phi(0) g / c^2 links gravity to electric fields. [read, CEFE Ch.2 Sec. 2.6 (pp.48-49); Felker Chs 13-14, digest only]
  6. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is refuted (microscope dx dp = h/25, Afshar, Croca) and replaced by a causal wave equation (box + kT) q = 0; the photon has a longitudinal B(3) spin field, confirmed by the inverse Faraday effect, and a nonzero mass; a minimum particle volume m V0 = k hbar^2/c^2 removes point particles; and W and Z masses of 78.6 and 89.3 GeV/c2 follow without a Higgs. [read, Felker Chs 7, 9-12, deep read of pp.203-250: no derivation of the boson masses is shown, the quoted values differ from the measured ~80.4 and ~91.19 GeV [memory, high], the electron V0 arithmetic is wrong, the bound is quoted as h/2 instead of hbar/2, and the only B(3) evidence is a footnote]
  7. ECE reproduces the electron g-factor (g(ECE) = 2.002323(49) against the experimental 2.0023193043718(75)) and the hydrogen Lamb shift (0.0353 cm^-1) without QED, and QED's precision tests are meaningless because they are limited by the accuracy of Planck's constant. [read, CEFE Ch.2 Sec. 2.8, pp.54-61; deep read of Secs 2.7-2.9: [calc] the book's own formula g = 2 + alpha/pi + alpha^2/8 pi^2 (Eqs 2.214, 2.223) gives 2.0023235, 4.19e-6 above experiment (about 5.6e5 times the experimental uncertainty, and farther off than Schwinger's 2 + alpha/pi alone); the quoted error bars (34) on alpha and (49) on g cannot be reproduced; the 'NIST inconsistency' in alpha is rounding, since the book's own inputs give alpha = 0.0072973525 [web, NIST]; the Lamb-shift length r = 1.69e-7 m is printed in Eq. 2.243 but never derived, equals about 3190 Bohr radii, and is within 0.3% of the value that fits the measured shift, so the 0.0353 cm^-1 is a fit, not a prediction; printed slips include Eq. 2.249 (3.48e-13 m should be 3.47e-14 m) and Eq. 2.227]

Not a physics claim, kept for context: the Ch.2 list of 36 'advances' (pp.61-66) has no numbers, equations or citations; academic physics ignored or abused these results ("belief retention", rejection of paper 93 by Physica B), and readership of AIAS papers is offered as evidence of acceptance. [read, CEFE preface and Ch.2 Sec. 2.1]