Comment / Share

  Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst


Censorship at the Physics Forums

The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. (Albert Einstein)

Hi Everyone,

The following is a post that I replied to at I don't think my reply was that bad given the criticism the Wave Structure of Matter received (which was completely unfounded - please see comments below).
However, when I went back to add a further comment 10 minutes later, I found that I was BANNED for life from the physicsforums - the reason given was "crackpot" - and my post was deleted (fortunately I could use the back button and get a copy of the entire thread, which I have posted below).
I wrote to them asking for an explanation and have received no reply (funny about that!). And since then I have posted twice using new accounts. Each time my posts have been deleted and I have been banned.

I wonder what people think of this form of censorship at the biggest physics forum on the internet?

If you are like me and think this is wrong - please post at their forum and tell them so. You can link to this page, or copy the content below and re-post it in your message.

Geoff Haselhurst (November 25th, 2007)

Wave Structure of Matter in Spacetime

(Posted at the physics forum by OJones, 18th of November, 2007)

There are many 'crackpot' scientific theories to be found online, but when I stumbled across the site I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published.

I tried to find something that would allow me to excuse this quackery - I suppose I am optimistic about peoples' nature at heart - but reading the 'published' (read FTP'd) papers on the subject on Milo Wolff's site, just confirmed that there is no 'theory' whatsoever; speculation 'backed-up' by wave equations so general that one would be surprised if they did not appear in a discussion of fundamental physics.

The problem I have is not with the theory - any theory can be put forward for scientific scrutiny as long as it makes testable predictions and is falsifiable - but with its presentation to the public as 'absolute truth', along with Wolff's book for sale on Amazon. My question is; are such crackpot theories dangerous, and if so what action should be taken to limit the damage they do to, for instance, the education of interested beginner scientists who find them by chance?


As a high school physics teacher, I try to make sure that folks understand the difference between a true theory and a speculation.

It would help if there was a large repository page for the crackpots, and by the sheer volume of fools with wildly different ideas that contradict each other yet say the same things ("established science is full of closed-minded, dogmatic, brainwashed conspirators who refuse to believe my "theory")... what was I saying? Oh yeah, the sheer volume of crap should persuade most people to pay more attention to the standard model.

Chi Meson

From my pov, part of the problem is that even respectable scientists call each other crackpots.

I had assumed that when I finished college I would know what 'the mainstream opinion' is wrt topics in physics, but I realized that this is often not so easy to determine. When I asked a professor friend how one determines what is and isn't accepted by the mainstream scientific community, I was told to look for the frequency of the references to a paper or theory.

As a physics graduate, it took me a month to get a handle on the state of the measurement problem. Finally, it was Steve Carlip who set the record straight and explained that there is no general agreement on this issue.

...consider the war between string theorists, LQG enthusiasts, and deniers of both. How many times have we heard scientists here say that string theory isn't science? Considering the number of physicists working on this, isn't it a bit confusing to call string theorists crackpots; or at least to imply as much? The same goes for the MWT.

Ivan Seeking

This is my reply to the above posts (mainly the first post). Geoff Haselhurst

Hi Everyone,

It is obvious that there are a lot of crackpots on the internet posting their pet ideas.
However, there are also a lot of crackpot critics on the internet too.

How do we resolve this? By abiding by the rules of science.

Thus it is very interesting that in the criticism above of the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) there is a complete lack of science in the criticism. i.e. There are no reasons given for why the Wave Structure of Matter is wrong - other than to say that it makes no testable predictions.
However this is clearly not correct. In fact it is a completely bizarre thing to write given that the WSM states that an electron is a spherical standing wave in Space where the Wave Center forms the 'particle' effect of the electron (and a positron / antimatter is just the opposite phase standing wave).

Thus it is up to scientists to see if there is any difference in the behaviour of an electron and a spherical standing wave in Space. i.e. This is a definite testable theory.

Now immediately you have a simple calculation that any maths physicist can make. What happens when two spherical standing waves move relative to one another? If you apply the Doppler shifts for the spherical in and out waves you deduce exactly what is observed. i.e.
1. The de Broglie wavelength of quantum theory.
2. The relativistic mass increase of Einstein's special relativity.

Milo Wolff explains this in this video at YouTube

Any mathematician can work this out - just simple wave equations and applying Doppler shifts. So why don't people do the maths and see this is true for themselves.

And this is very remarkable, as it is the first time that these two theories have been united from one set of simple wave equations. To ignore this would be crazy.

Further, the Wave Structure of Matter is deduced as the most simple science theory for describing reality - founded on the one and only thing that we all commonly experience, Space (mind and matter are many things, space is always one thing).
This not only satisfies the central principle of Science, Occam's razor, but also explains the foundations of Metaphysics and Philosophy, that reality must be described from only one thing existing to explain the interconnection of all things in the universe.

What else does it predict / deduce.

1. Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

2. Mach's Principle.

3. The size of our observable universe within infinite Space (thus the motion of distant galaxies will behave as if they are surrounded by matter).

4. Curvature of the space-time continuum in Einstein's general relativity.

5. That light is due to resonant coupling - and thus is discrete. i.e. The electron can only exist in discrete wave functions thus discrete energy states in an atom or molecule.

6. That the de Broglie wave is a phase wave with high velocity for low relative motion, where de Broglie phase wave has velocity c^2 / relative velocity. This provides a simple explanation for non-locality as found in the EPR experiment.

Given the nature of the above criticism I think they should provide some examples from the site where I have written something that is not true - and that they must back this up using rules of science. Perhaps a list of ten things would be good - as OJones writes;

"I was horrified by the sheer scale and volume of the unscientific, unfounded, misinterpreted rubbish that the site's creator (Geoff Haselhurst) had published."

The Wave Structure of Matter can be deduced by anyone as the most simple science theory for describing reality. As Occam's razor is a fundamental principle of science, scientists must show why this deduction is not true. Specifically;

1. Does anyone have any evidence that the space we all commonly experience existing in does not exist.

2. That all matter interactions are not wave interactions in this space.

Again - scientists must use rules of science in answering this.

Finally, are they also saying that Erwin Schrodinger and Carver Mead are crackpots?

"The quantum world is a world of waves, not particles. So we have to think of electron waves and proton waves and so on. Matter is 'incoherent' when all its waves have a different wavelength, implying a different momentum. On the other hand, if you take a pure quantum system – the electrons in a superconducting magnet, or the atoms in a laser – they are all in phase with one another, and they demonstrate the wave nature of matter on a large scale. Then you can see quite visibly what matter is down at its heart." (Carver Mead Interview, American Spectator, Sep/Oct2001, Vol. 34 Issue 7, p68)

'It is my firm belief that the last seven decades of the twentieth century will be characterized in history as the dark ages of theoretical physics.' (Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics)

'What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). ... The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. ... Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statements
of quantum mechanics held today (1950s), I am opposing as it were the whole of it, I am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. ... I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ... The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists.' (Erwin Schrodinger)

In hindsight it is obvious that the 'particle' conception of matter does not work and is the cause of the the problems and paradoxes found in physics. Yet until recently no one seriously thought about a pure Wave Structure of Matter in Space. Physicists just went with the particle / wave duality and treated the wave as a 'probability' wave to determine the location of the 'particle'. And they completely ignored any explanation as to why the probability is determined by a wave function, and why the allowed energy states of electrons are discrete (the cause of light quanta) as determined by Schrodinger's wave equations.

The Wave Structure of Matter explains the particle properties of light and matter perfectly. It also explains and solves the central problems of metaphysics and philosophy by explaining how matter is interconnected across the universe.

Given the state of our world, how desperately we need to know the truth about reality as a foundation for thinking and acting wisely, well for scientists to ignore this would be gross negligence (to say the least).
But most will ignore this - as like all humans they are programmed to believe in the dogma / paradigm of their time, i.e. the Standard Model of particle physics, particle / probability wave interpretation of quantum theory, the Big Bang cosmology, ...)

There is much more. But this is a good start.

Geoff Haselhurst

PS - This page on censorship in physics publications is important too.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck)

Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. But I look with confidence to the future to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality. (Charles Darwin)

I wish, my dear Kepler, that we could have a good laugh together at the extraordinary stupidity of the mob. What do you think of the foremost philosophers of this University? In spite of my oft-repeated efforts and invitations, they have refused, with the obstinacy of a glutted adder, to look at the planets or Moon or my telescope. ...
In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. (Galileo Galilei)


Help Humanity

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)

Albert Einstein"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)

Biography: Geoffrey Haselhurst, Philosopher of Science, Theoretical Physics, Metaphysics, Evolution. Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the fundamental problems of human knowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is Easy to Help!

Just click on the Social Network links below, or copy a nice image or quote you like and share it. We have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. In doing this you will help a new generation of scientists see that there is a simple sensible explanation of physical reality - the source of truth and wisdom, the only cure for the madness of man! Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst (Updated September, 2018)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

Instagram Profile - Geoffrey Haselhurst

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)

Copyright 1997 - 2018
We support 'Fair Use' of these pages for Academic & Non Commercial use.
You are welcome to use images and text, but please reference them with a link to relevant web page on this site. Thanks!

Creative Commons License