Talk:Myron Evans/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 NPOV tag 2 I don't think you tried too hard on Google! 3 Publication record 4 Civil List Pension 5 Testimonials 6 Meldola Medal 7 NPOV Tag 8 More problems 9 New, NPOV version

NPOV tag

I think this is pseudoscience; Google searches don't yield anything other than Evans' own Web sites, his appearances and speeches, and some discussions on his efforts to shut down mailing lists that dispute his findings. But I'm no physicist. Still, even if it's real, it's written like an advert for him and his ideas. | Klaw ¡digame! 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you tried too hard on Google!

Why don't you try again under Myron W Evans

Results 1 - 10 of about 423,000 for Myron W Evans. (0.32 seconds) (Google Result 16 Dec 05)Solmil

• Results 1 - 10 of about 9,990 for "myron w. evans". (0.43 seconds) The quotes are key; otherwise you get pages that have both "Myron" and "Evans" even if they're not near each other. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So, you have proved your first statement totally inaccurate... I would suggest you retract it completely and do some research before making such baseless and inaccurate statements about subjects you know absolutely nothing about.

And I hope the persons responsible for controlling this website also do their homework before accepting such inaccurate emotive illconsidered information as you have place on this page. Solmil

No-one really controls the WP; some of us think that's rather the problem. Disputes here are worked out by some combination of consensus and mob rule. Some of us feel that in scientific articles, the judgements of scientists who know the field in question should carry more weight, but not every Wikipedia agrees with this.

About the Google search, I also found lotsa hits, but the number of hits is largely irrelevant. Yes, there are many hits, but almost all of them link to various free-energy websites, including some you linked to, and these are partisan websites (and just about everyone, certainly every scientist would say, crackpot sites) which obviously violate WP:NPOV.---CH 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Publication record

Evans has publications, that even sometimes get cited, but nearly all citations are by himself, see:

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=link:K2V4K8REYk4J:scholar.google.com/
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=link:h0bWFHe8kzoJ:scholar.google.com/
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&q=link:QxIY4hFk17wJ:scholar.google.com/

(I hope these are permanent links and not session based)

If someone other cites him, then only to refute his statements:

• We comment also on a result called ‘Evans Lemma’ of differential geometry and claimed in [11] to be as important as the Poincaré lemma. We show that ‘Evans Lemma’ as presented in [11] is a false statement, the proof offered by that author being invalid because in trying to use the naive tetrad postulate he did incorrect use of some fundamental concepts of differential geometry, as, e.g.,1 his (wrong) Eq.(41E). [1]

Pjacobi 08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, what a hoot! Anyway, I think I know the gtr literature pretty well, but I have certainly never seen reference to any "Evans lemma" (until now). PJ, good catch!---CH 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Civil List Pension

I am removing this because I can find no independent confirmation. Here though it Evan's letter requesting (nay, demanding) an FRS.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005 3:43 AM The Civil List Prof. Richard Catlow, F.R.S., The Royal Institution, London, Dear Richard, It may be helpful to mention that the Civil List Pension is awarded upon discretion of H. M. Queen Elizabeth II after advice by the Prime Minister and after nomination by a Royal Society, in my case the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). It is voted in by Parliament and is awarded for life (albeit at 1837 levels!). The Prime Minister takes advice from at least three distinguished referees. In my case these were international. Futher information on the Civil List pension may be obtained from the Department of Work and Pensions. Therefore the Royal Society is the odd man out in my case, i.e. it is the only major British institiution of relevance NOT to have recognized my contributions. Many think that this is an oversight and an anomaly. Currently there are 27 Civil List Pensioners in Britain and the Commonwealth, and I have the signal honour of being the only scientist on the Civil List. The Royal Society (RS) was founded as you know to recognise significant contributions to science. My appointment to H. M. Civil List was in recognition of my distinguished contributions to Britain and the Commonwealth in science. It therefore follows that I should be elected Fellow of the Royal Society. Note that this is not "lobbying", it is necessary in view of the fact that the Patroness of the Royal Society is the Queen. I trust that you can see my logic. As a matter of interest very few scientists have been appointed Civil List Pensioners. These include the great Michael Faraday, Joule (the father of thermodynamics); Brown (the botanist who discovered the Brownian motion), and the Astronomer Royal Airy. Notable poets who were appointed to the Civil List include Lord Byron, Lord Tennyson and William Wordsworth. My predecessor form Wales on the Civil List was the distinguished poet Vernon Watkins (1906 to late sixties) who was born in Maesteg and read modern languages at Cambridge. He was a close friend of Dylan Thomas and is commemorated in the Glyn Vivian Gallery in Swansea. The Civil List is confidential, but may be found in the House of Commons Library. Cordially, Myron Evans (Civil List 2005).

Rich Farmbrough 23:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL, seems like Evans is his own worst enemy, although IMHO Solmil isn't really helping him either. ---CH 01:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Civil List pension is announced in this letter - Mathsci 10:40, 7 February 2006 (CET)

Testimonials

I have removed these as not relevant to the aritcle. Also Evans apparent reply to detractors for the same reason. Rich Farmbrough 23:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Note also that one attestee was "John B. Hart,Father of the House of the Alpha Foundation Institute of Advanced Studies". Rich Farmbrough 23:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Meldola Medal

For some reason the RSC doen't list the Meldola Medal winners. Anyone got access ti the list, I believe Evans was in 1979. Rich Farmbrough 23:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Can we remove this now? Rich Farmbrough 00:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If the physics community generally rejects Evans' theory, the page needs to clearly say so to qualify as NPOV.--Srleffler 00:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I did reduce the warning to NPOV from "totally disputed", though.--Srleffler 06:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm new to this wiki editing process and it's amazing to watch and learn as it take place. The amazing people 'out there' and the interactions and learnings that take place.

Yes, I vote to take off the NPOV tag for the same reasons. ECE is a highly relevent exact and detailed published theoretical physics theory that makes very large claims that need to be universally disputed (and such disputation proved) to make the NPOV tag valid. Additionally, the facts of Myron Evans and his existence and his work are real. Solmil 23:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

If the vote is to delete, this will be moot. If not, I guess the recommendation will be to rewrite. In that case, we clearly need to keep the NPOV tag until Solmil learns our WP mores regarding WP:NPOV. BTW, Solmil, your continuing to edit while your article is being voted on (AfD) is generally deprecated.---CH 01:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

More problems

Someone (Solmil?) added a cite to Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory, M W Evans, 2005, apparently implying that this is a published book. I can find no publication record at Amazon, much less my uni library. This seems rather to be a self-published book (or pdf file or something like that) which is available at two partisan free-energy sites which Solmil cited in the original version of the article.---CH 01:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Try http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/002-9918092-3076803?url=index%3Dblended&field-keywords=Generally+Covariant+Unified+Field+Theory&Go.x=9&Go.y=11

Quite a straight forward search. Solmil 09:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, to point out the obvious: for those who think the Harrison Prize (which we have more or less verified) makes Evans a notable chemist, can someone find the citation? Can someone find a chemist who can explain why Evans' work in chemistry is (or is not) notable? If we keep this article we need to separate Evans' prior (?) and possibly more or less mainstream work in chemistry from his more recent (?) crackpot stuff. I take it he claims no current academic affiliations at a research university? And what was his position and what precisely did he do at the Cornell Theory Center? Can anyone find out and verify?---CH 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Evans has many books published, including but not limited to his Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory, Volume I which is published by Abramis Academic Publishing (http://www.abramis.co.uk/). A list of his many other published works can be found quite easily on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author-exact=Myron%20W.%20Evans&rank=-relevance%2C%2Bavailability%2C-daterank/002-3629099-6421628). His papers have been published in Found. Phys. Letters, as well as World Scientific. I am in personal contact with Evans and can vouch for his work, as well as get independent confirmation from 50+ professors, including Nobel Laureates, members of the Swedish Royal Academy etc. Evans' sites are http://www.aias.us and http://www.atomicprescision.com . I recommend querying Professor Emeritus John B. Hart from Xavier University, Ohio, for confirmation of Evans' achievements and credibility. His email address may be obtained via the Xavier University physics dept. site. n00854180t 05:52, 05 January 2006 (UTC)

Please supply the names of these Nobel laureates [excluding Brian Josephson] and of these members of the Swedish Royal Academy [excluding Bo Lehnert]. Praise for AIAS members and scorn for those who question Evans' mathematics (like Rodrigues, Bruhn and Laktakhia) does not add to the credibility of your case. Cronyism does not make pseudoscience valid. The statistics for the AIAS website http://www.aias.us/stats/log.refs.html show that the top 10 referring domains currently include brutalwebsex.com, exdrawings.com, nasty-anal-sex.com and getbdsmporno.com. These are plainly not scientific research establishments. Their presence shows that the site has not been protected against spamming and puts into question all claims about the number of visits to the site by reputable scientists. It may well be that visits to the AIAS site and Evans' atomicprecision blog are simply prompted by the morbid curiosity of physicists or mathematicians in need of a moment's diversion. (Another AIAS website hosted by the University of Bangor was removed after complaints to the webmaster.)

Actually, FPL papers of Evans were extremely lightly reviewed. The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Gerardus 't Hooft has junked his work on http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/theoristbad.html . Also see the mathematical refutations and experimental refutations of B(3) theory of Evans (now called ECE theory) cited on the same website. Finally, Evans does not hold a professorial appointment at any recognized university. He held such a position for roughly three years in the mid-1990s.

The paper you cite does not contain any review or criticism of ECE theory, and is little more than a collection of insults by t'Hooft, who has admitted to being completely ignorant of Evans' work. So far, no one has brought forth any valid arguments against Evans' theories, as doing so would be to criticise well known and established Cartan geometry. Your own ignorance of Evans' work is apparent from your misunderstanding of what B(3) and ECE theory are, so your credibility in criticising Evans is invalid. I think if no legitimate arguments against Evans theories can be brought forth, the NPOV dispution should be dropped, immediately. n00854180t

n00854180t, there is at least one thing missing, that is needed before the NPOV tag can be removed. The article at present does not make it clear that Evans' theory is not widely accepted in the scientific community. Policy requires that this be made clear. I'll see if I can add it. WP:NPOV requires that minority positions be identified as such.--Srleffler 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if a qualified third party would comment on the detailed criticisms of Evans Maths contained in the link - Evans most spectacular errors.

I suggest that it is not fair to label his work as pseudo science.It may be wrong but he does provide testable hypotheses. To say that his work is not generally accepted is enough I think. Srleffler may wish to remove the pseudoscience statement.User norpag.

Norpag, someone just answered your complaint, by adding the comment about Evans having claimed that "a group in Mexico has constructed a device which can transduce electrical energy from space-time." Undemonstrated claims that a new, non-mainstream theory yields a "free energy" device are more than sufficient, in themselves, to declare a theory to be pseudoscience. If Evans' goal were to ensure that no physicist would ever take his theory seriously, he couldn't do anything better than this. A demonstration by the group in Mexico would help a little, but not all that much. There are lots of ways to make a fake "free energy" device. Many such have been demonstrated, submitted to the patent office, etc. There are even several ways to make a fake free energy device without knowing that it's a fake. These devices always have a conventional power source in them somewhere, and it's easy to miscalculate such that you are either using less power than you think, or are getting more power from the conventional source than you think. The only way a "free energy" source could possibly help, would be if it were both demonstrated by his people, and the experiment was replicated by an entirely independent group of researchers, unconnected with Evans' followers. Premature claims for the existence of an undemonstrated device, however, make it far less likely that anyone will take his work seriously enough to bother. There are way too many crackpots out there with novel theories that they claim will produce "free energy" devices. --Srleffler 04:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Srleffler. I was the one (norpag) who added the bit about the Mexican group for the very reason that you suggest .To further show how far out some of Evans claims are. However if you read his papers you will see that some of his core concepts and insights might prove fruitful even if his Maths is questionable. His theories are testable by experiment and do not deserve to be derisively labelled pseudoscience.Bruhn, his severest critic, at least takes the trouble to review Evans equations in detail. Evans ideas are at least as much science as String Theory which is more like theology than anything else. [Unsigned comment by user who wasn't logged in. 10:31, January 12, 2006]

Making testable predictions is necessary for a theory to be science, but is not sufficient by itself. One of the problems with crackpots is that they tend to ignore criticism of their theories, and often even ignore contrary experimental evidence. Scientists do not do this, and it is almost impossible to deal with a theory scientifically when the proponents ignore counterevidence and errors pointed out by other researchers. If you can't get the proponents to agree on what constitutes a valid test, or can't get them to admit defeat when the theory fails such a test, the theory's predictions are effectively untestable.--Srleffler 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

All: Evan's B3 theory (the forerunner of the ECE theory) was experimentally tested by at least 3 different researchers: Compton, Rikken, and Raja et al. All three reported that the his predictions were wrong. See: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/EvansChap13.html . The ECE theory is simply the B3 theory in new garb, that too with wrong mathematics. [Unsigned comment by User:Akhlesh, 15:32, January 12, 2006]

Akhlesh, Evans already pointed out the flaws with their criticisms some time ago. I'll have to look up the reference. Bruhn's criticism is pathetic, and he's admitted to not understanding Evans' work, and has on numerous occaisions sent babbling harassment messages. Bruhn is facing possible felony charges if he continues with his harassment. I'm going to have to say that the sentence claiming that Evans' theories are false in the article are themselves biased, since Bruhn hasn't actually brought any legitimate criticism, and is nothing more than a pseudo-academic attempting to defame Evans. N00854180t 01:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

N00854180t: Evans' refutations are of the non sequitur variety. Bruhn is a careful and experienced mathematician. Evans is not. He once wrote a paper (rejected by Physical Review E after many reviews) based on the false vector identity curl (a x b) = a x curl b - b x curl a. Based on the still-unpublished paper, he published papers in Theochem, etc. Eventually, most editors found out that his papers on B3 were garbage and stopped accepting them. The sole exception for several years was Foundations of Physics Letters, 50% of whose editorial board comprises dead people according to the Nobel Prize winning physicist Gerard 't Hooft. When Kluwer was bought by Springer, they put a stop to Evans' papers in FPL also (though some that were in the production pipeline could not be stopped in time). Springer as well as World Scientific declined in 2005 to publish his books.User:TheScienceGuy Feb 5, 2006

I don't think there is any statement in the article claiming that Evans' theories are false. The article correctly reports that physicists generally do not accept his theory, and consider it to be pseudoscience. The article also reports that three researchers report having tested his theory and found his predictions to be wrong, and that another researcher has found math errors in his work. In accordance with WP:NPOV, nothing in the article says that Evans' theory is wrong. The article reports, hopefully correctly, the opinion of the scientific community about Evans' work, and gives appropriate balance to each side. --Srleffler 02:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how Bruhn (who admits his own failure to understand the basic concepts of Cartan geometry, as evinced by his poorly written "paper", where he demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the definition of the tetrad, which is fundamental to understanding ECE theory) or t'Hooft are more representative of "physicists" in general than are the thousands of government and academic organizations that download mass amounts of data from the AIAS websites on a DAILY BASIS, as can be seen by the statistics. The fact of the matter is, Bruhn's so-called criticism was shown to be incorrect far long ago, and Evans' work has been rigorously checked many times by far better scientists than Bruhn could ever hope to be. Bruhn long ago stopped offering any real criticism, and has merely been criminally harrassing legitimate scholars and engineers. Honestly though, I can see why many people don't take Wikipedia seriously, what with some of the ignorant trolling that stops good articles from being upkept. However, I do recognize that the article on Evans needs more references. There are references for Evans' work out there, but due to the nature of differential geometry (pick up any two texts on differential geometry, and look through each. Many are so disparate that a laymen might be under the impression they were in regards different subjects altogether) it's difficult to provide references that laymen will understand. Case in point, Bruhn's poor understanding of many fundamental concepts, although his paper appears genuine to those that don't know better. But I digress, I tire of writing these responses, because in the end it matters very little what people like Bruhn (who is clearly obsessed, and has comitted multiple felonies by his continuing harrassment) think of Evans or his theories, because there is an immense amount of worldwide interest from legitimate and mature scientists, that don't result to petty name-calling ala Bruhn. N00854180t 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

n00854180t: Bruhn never admitted that he does not know Cartan geometry. He knows it very well. On the other hand, Evans does not know Cartan genoetry as he misuses it. He also does not vector calculus either; see: http://opensys.blogsome.com/2005/07/01/ User:TheScienceGuy Feb 5, 2006

Really, one doesn't judge the general scientific consensus on a theory by how many hits a website gets. That would be just silly. What matters; all that matters, is what has been published in the scientific literature, and the extent to which that literature is used and cited by other scientists. The suggestion that hits on a website are somehow relevant just brings the theories you are promoting into disrepute. --Srleffler 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Really, one doesn't judge the general scientific consensus on a theory by one person that doesn't understand said theory. "Hits" and constant visits from every major organization involved in advanced physics research are rather disparate concepts. Again though, I much tire of this. N00854180t 16:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll just leave off by pointing out that Evans has produced a huge body of verifiable and reviewed papers and books, some of which can be purchased on Amazon.com and other outlets (including the various publishers' websites), with complete lists in the Niels Bohr Library, the American Institute of Physics and the Library of Congress(list appended below). Further, Myron W. Evans has had many previous positions in leading academic institutions, and a list of these can found in his resume. As for being properly peer reviewed, I happen to know for a fact that Professor Emeritus John B. Hart from Xavier University, OH, has himself corresponded thoroughly with Evans and reviewed his work. This in addition to many other other scientists and engineers, Nobel Laureates and others. Evans' work has in fact been featured in journals, i.e. those listed above. Everything that "Ahklesh" has pointed out as so called "problems" have merely been the result of laziness. Nothing even remotely resembling legitimate critique has come forth so far, and I'll have to guarantee you that Evans knows differential geometry far better than does Bruhn(not to mention the fact that Bruhn's little "paper" is only proof that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Although, I have to give him credit for making it look somewhat legitimate, even though he's glaringly false.).

List:

• 1) M. W. Evans, G. J. Evans, W. T. Coffey and P. Grigolini, "Molecular Dynamics and the Theory of Broad Band Spectroscopy" (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1982).
• 2) M. W. Evans, W. T. Coffey and P. Grigolini, "Molecular Diffusion", (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1984).
• 3) M. W. Evans, P. Grigolini and G. Pastori-Paravicini (eds.), "Memory Function Approaches to Stochastic Problems in Condensed Matter, a special topical issue of I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), "Advances in Chemical Physics" (Wiley Interscience, New York, 1985), vol. 62.
• 4) M. W. Evans (ed.), "Dynamical Processes in Condensed Matter, ibid., vol. 63.
• 5) M. W. Evans and S. Kielich (eds.), "Modern Non-Linear Optics", ibid. vol. 85(1) (1992, 1993 and 1997 (softback)).
• 6) ibid., vol. 85(2).
• 7) ibid. vol. 85(3).
• 8) M. W. Evans (series ed. and author), "The Photon's Magnetic Field" (World Scientific, 1992).
• 9) M. W. Evans (series ed.), A. Lakhtakia, "Beltrami fields in Chiral Media" (World Scientific)

This book was not written by Evans. He merely edited a book series for some years. Such editors work as commisioning editors only. TheScienceGuy 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• 10) M. W. Evans (series ed.), P. Grigolini, "Mechanical Irreversibility and Measurement" (World Scientific).
• 11) M. W. Evans (series ed. and co-author), M. W. Evans and A. A. Hasanein, "Quantum Chemistry vol. 1, "The Photomagneton and Quantum Field Theory" (World Scientific, 1994).
• 12) ibid. vol. 2, "Computational Methods in Quantum Chemistry".
• 13) M. W. Evans (series ed.), L. A. Pozhar, "Transport Theory of Inhomogeneous Fluids" (World Scientific).

This book was not written by Evans. He merely edited a book series for some years. Such editors work as commisioning editors only. TheScienceGuy 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• 14) M. W. Evans (series ed.), J.-L. Dejardin, "Dynamic Kerr Effect: The Use and Limits of the Smoluchowski Equation and Non-Linear Inertial Responses" (World Scientific).

This book was not written by Evans. He merely edited a book series for some years. Such editors work as commisioning editors only. TheScienceGuy 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• 15) M. W. Evans (series ed.), V. I. Gaiduk, "Dielectric Relaxation and Dynamics of Polar Molecules" (World Scientific).

This book was not written by Evans. He merely edited a book series for some years. Such editors work as commisioning editors only. TheScienceGuy 13:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• 16) M. W. Evans and J.-P. Vigier, "The Enigmatic Photon, Volume One: The Field B(3)" (van der Merwe series, Kluwer, 1994, softback 2002).
• 17) ibid., vol. 2: "Non-Abelian Electrodynamics", (1995, softback 2002).
• 18) ibid., vol. 3: "Theory and Practice of the B(3) Field" (1996, softback 2002).
• 19) ibid., vol. 4: "New Directions" (1998, softback 2002).
• 20) ibid., vol. 5: "O(3) electrodynamics" (1999, softback 2002).
• 21) M. W. Evans (series ed. and co-author): G. W. Robinson, S. B. Zhu, S. Singh and M. W. Evans, "Water in Biology, Chemistry and Physics: Experimental Overviews and Computational Methodologies" (World Scientific).
• 22) M. W. Evans (series ed.): W. T Coffey, Y. P. Kalmykov and J. T. Waldron, "The Langevin Equation: With Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Electrical Engineering" (World Scientific).
• 23) M. W. Evans (series ed.): E. Chiellini, M. Giordano and D. Leporini (eds.), "Structure and Properties in Organized Polymeric Materials" (World Sceintific).
• 24) M. W. Evans (series ed.): M. Giordano, D. Leporini and M. P. Tosi (eds.), "Proceedings of the European Conference on Non-Equilibrium Phenomena in Supercooled Fluids, Glasses and Amorphous Materials" (World Sceintific).
• 25) M. W. Evans (series eds.): J.-R. Lalanne, "Electronic Structure and Chemical Bonding" (World Scientific).
• 26) M. W. Evans (series ed.): M. Sachs, "Dialogues on Modern Physics" (World Scientific).
• 27) M. W. Evans (series ed. and co-author): M. W. Evans and L. B. Crowell, "Classical and Quantum Electrodynamics and the B(3) Field" (World Scientific, 2001).
• 29) M. W. Evans (ed.), "Modern Non-Linear Optics", a special topical issue of I. Prigogine and S. A. Rice (series eds.), "Advances in Chemical Physics" (Wiley Intercience, New York, 2001, 2nd. ed.), vol. 119(1).
• 30) ibid. vol. 119(2).
• 31) ibid., vol. 119(3).
• 32) M. W. Evans (series ed.): V. Perinova, A. Luks and J. Perina, "Phase in Optics (World Scientific).
• 33) M. W. Evans (series ed.): S. Roy and B. Lehnert, "Extended Electromagnetic Theory: Space Charge in Vacuo and the Rest Mass of the Photon" (World Scientific, 1998).
• 34) M. W. Evans (series ed.): J.-R. Lalanne, F. Carmona and L. Servant, "Optical Spectroscopies of Electronic Absorption" (World Scientific).
• 35) M. W. Evans (series ed.): H. F. Harmuth, T. W. Barrett and B. Meffert, "Modified Maxwell Equations in Quantum Electrodynamics (World Scientific).
• 36) M. W. Evans (sereis ed.), J. R. Croca, "Towards a Nonlinear Quantum Physics" (World Scientific 2003).
• 37) M. W. Evans (series ed.), second ed. of ref. (22).
• 38) M. W. Evans (series ed.), P. Cornille, "Advanced Electromganetism and Vacuum Physics" (World Scientific).
• 39) M. W. Evans (series ed.): F Cardone and R. Mignani, "An Introduction to Deformed Special Relativity" (World Scientific).
• 40) M. W. Evans (series ed.): M. R. Fisch, "Liquid Crystals, Laptops and Life" (World Scientific).
• 41) M. W. Evans (series ed.): S. D. Bosanac, "Dynamics of Partices and the Electromagnetic Field" (World Scientific).
• 42) M. W. Evans (series ed.): L. B. Crowell, "Quantum Fluctuations of Spacetime" (World Scientific).
• 43) M. W. Evans, "Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory" (Abramis, softback, 2005), vol. 1.
• 44) ibid., vol. 2 (in press, 2006).
• 45) ibid., vol. 3 (in prep. 2006).

N00854180t 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Srleffler- I assume you made the latest changes to the article and added the Bruhn reference.I think the article now represents the current standing of Evans work reasonably objectively and should stand as is. - Norpag.

No, the Bruhn reference and the sentences about experimental evidence against Evans' theories were added by User:Akhlesh, not by me. I just cleaned up the text a bit and converted the web link into a more formal reference. By the way, if you put four tilde characters (~~~~) in a row at the end of your talk page messages, the software will automatically fill in your username and the date and time for you. It looks like this: Srleffler 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think Evans is on to something. There are clearly mistakes introduced in the changes made to Maxwell’s original equations in quaternion form when they were simplified to make them easier for engineers to use by someone called Oliver Heaviside. This makes over unity energy transfer impossible, not the original equations as the original equations were the more general case. So we have had this artificial constraint placed on the fundamental basis of physics since 1880 and it's no wonder the establishment are cagey about this.

What we are experiencing by this non acceptance of Myron Evans work is political interests at play and especially the implications for the oil industry which could become redundant overnight. However all is not lost because another ‘impossible’ thing called cold fusion is now accepted by the American Department of Energy to be experimentally valid, despite their admittance that they do not understand the theoretical basis for it. This admittance was recently published in the New Scientist magazine and they are now open to research proposals in this technology. [Unsigned comment by User:195.92.67.69, Jan. 13 2006.]

This is a ridiculous argument. Evans' work is not accepted because it leads people to write things like this.--Srleffler 23:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Contributors to this discussion might wish to google Taishi Kurata .The third reference leads to a Xinhua news agency report of Aug 2005 on a Plastics to Oil conversion plant being built in China by Kuratas Japanese company - based on Evans B3 field ideas.68.203.178.119 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out http://en.ce.cn/Industries/Energy&Mining/200508/03/t20050803_4337368.shtml It does not indicate that B3 will be used to convert plastics into oil. Furthermore, the use of circularly polarized plane waves does not amount to B3. User:TheScienceGuy Feb 5, 2006

User: the article you refer to states that the process used is a quantum physico chemical reaction. If you check taishi kurata's home website there is a detailed account of the process with references to Evans work.Check also the first two references brought up by googling Taishi Kurata.68.203.178.119 13:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

68.203.178.119 I had checked out those two sites. There is nothing scientific in those cites that attests to the presence of B3. At best, they show that circularly polarized light can have a certain effect on aromatic chemicals. Circularly polarized light has an angular momentum that can affect chemical processes. That angular momentum is not B3. [Mutiply the angular momentum by a quantity with appropriate units, and you can convert it into mass, weight, irradiance, electric current, magnetic dipole strength, etc.!] TheScienceGuy 14:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User: There is a link to Kuratas web site on the aias.us web site. Click on the english version and Kurata begins by founding his methods on Evans B3 field. regards 68.203.178.119 15:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

68.203.178.119 I had already done that. Kurata falsely equates circular polarization with B3, just like Evans has done from 1992 onwards. TheScienceGuy 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User: Kurata does not equate circular polarisation with the B3 field. The first figure in the Kurata report that we are both looking at clearly indicates that he believes that the B3 field is not the same as circular polarisation but results from the interaction of two circularly polarised fields one clockwise the other anticlockwise.68.203.178.119 18:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

68.203.178.119 That is even worse! Two CP fields cannot produce a magnetostatic field. Get hold of an elementray textbook like John Kraus' or Roger Harrington's or even Durney and Johnson. Write down the electric and magentic fields (not phasors) of a CP planewave. Try to produce a zero-frequency magnetic field from two CP plane waves of the same frequency! Post your results on a website (mathematics and all), and then you and I can discuss the matter as two electromagnetics researchers. BTW, Kurata calls Evans a Maxwell and himself an Edison!! TheScienceGuy 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User:I suppose Evans/Kurata would argue that the Maxwell equations currently in use in the textbooks are incomplete and that the calculations you suggest should be made using Evans equations.Unfortunately my background in Maths and Physics is inadequate to judge whether Evans or Bruhn are right in their discussions of these matters.Much of what Evans does is based on the Tetrad postulate of Sean M Carroll of the University of Chicago who seems not to wish to comment on Evans use of his work -Regards68.203.178.119 20:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

68.203.178.119 As your background in physics and mathematics is inadequate by your own admission, and as you have no proven ability to judge theoretical physics and its experimental consequences, it would behove you not to make grand claims on Evans' and Kurata's behalf(s). Also, do not invest in any company seeking to sell electricity "created" from spacetime! Enough of this discussion!! TheScienceGuy 20:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

User: The Plant exists,Kurata says it works using B3-I merely report these facts.No where do I make grand claims.I say I can't judge the correctness of Evans work.A suitably modest position I think Bye68.203.178.119 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

New, NPOV version

In a previous version, someone wrote:

As Einstein attributed gravitation to the curvature of space-time, the new theory attributes electromagnetism to the torsion of space-time. The possibility of reciprocal interactions between gravitation and electromagnetism -- which possibility is denied in current mainstream physics -- leads to predictions of new physical effects which could be used to produce power and energy from space-time.

The ECE theory builds on the work of Einstein and Cartan, who from 1925 to 1955 sought to unify field theory in physics with the principles of general relativity. Dr Evan's book Generally Covariant Unified Field Theory describes unification achieved with the principles of standard Cartan geometry and the Evans Ansatz. The latter shows that electromagnetism is spinning spacetime, gravitation is curving spacetime and that they are unified with the structure (or master) equations of Cartan. Quantum mechanics is unified with general relativity using the Evans Lemma and wave equation.

The mathematical structure of ECE field theory is differential geometry. In certain conditions ECE theory reduces to Einstein Hilbert theory, and to Maxwell Heaviside field theory in classical electrodynamics. The Dirac equation can be derived as a limit of the wave equation of ECE theory. The Schrodinger and Newton equations then follow as limits of the Dirac equation. ECE field theory claims to provide structure for the unification of field theory.

Since

• some of this is wrong as stated (strictly speaking, mainstream gtr says that EM radiation can create gravitational radiation, and EM and gravitational fields can exchange energy/momentum),
• it fails critically assess the dubious claims of Myron Evans,
• it fails to distinguish his claims from much earlier and highly influential mainstream work in gravitation physics (which is often called Einstein-Cartan theory),
• this article is allegedly about Evans, not about his "theory",
• we cite his book and pro-Evans websites where anyone curious can find alleged "support" for these claims,

I simply deleted this material. While I was at it, I deleted over 700 papers since that seems hard to verify.

Since these excisions removed the NPOV claims in the previous version, I removed the POV-because flag. If some kind person can just check the bibliographic citations and Myron's C.V., we can probably remove the verifiability tag too. I hope that the enthusiastic supporters of Evans who wrote the earlier version will resist the temptation to put back in the uncritical NPOV summaries of Evans' alleged achievements. Please note that anyone curious to read Evans's own account should be able to find his writings from the citations. TIA for your cooperation in building a comprehensive but accurate encyclopedia!---CH 02:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The new NPOV page is much better! Much! But I would like to ask what's the reason for saying he is a chemist? From my interaction with him I always gathered that he is a physicist and writing physical chemistry papers and having membership in a chemistry society is not strange for a physicist. He has optics publications as well http://josab.osa.org/abstract.cfm?id=6295. Physicists work in chemistry a lot, chemists don't do optics so much.

He is a physical chemist by training. Since 1992 he has functioned as a physicist (which perhaps was a mistake!)TheScienceGuy 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 70.181.163.216, if you look back at previous comments and the AfD debate, you'll see quite a bit of "ink" was spilled on the issue of Evans's CV and honors. Those positions and honors which we could verify which were not awarded by his own organization (!) all concerned work in chemistry, and his degree was in chemistry. Hence, his professional background is in chemistry, not physics.---CH 02:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)