Two updated preprints

First some ancient history: Isaac Newton Institute preprint 19011, written two years ago, has been updated to take account of a referee’s comments, and is available at, since the arXiv refused to post it. As you know, my ideas have moved on significantly since then, so it is a bit of a compromise, and refers to later papers for the newer ideas, rather than being completely re-written.

Next the saga of “Quaternionic reflections on (non)locality”, which is still “on hold” at the arXiv after four weeks, and I can only assume will stay that way indefinitely. The 26-page version that I submitted to a journal yesterday is at, and does a reasonable job (I think) of superseding a great deal (though not all) of my earlier work. It certainly isn’t perfect, but I’m hoping it’s good enough that editors and referees will take it seriously, and help me to improve it, rather than reject without the option to resubmit.

What it does, or tries to do, is tie together a lot of separate ideas that have come and gone over many years into a single coherent story, that starts with the experimental properties of polarised light, and keeps going in a single logical argument until it reaches a quantum theory of gravity. You can quibble with some details, of course, but the overall architecture and engineering is sound. This bridge will not fall down.


9 Responses to “Two updated preprints”

  1. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    I was wrong – the arXiv have now rejected my submission “Quaternionic reflections and (non)locality”, on totally spurious grounds, after 29 days.

  2. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    I’ve just realised that in the first of these papers I have noted the incompatibility of my formula for electron masses with the Koide Formula, without giving the attribution to Marni Dee Sheppeard, who pointed this out to me in April 2015. Very naughty of me, and I will certainly correct it if this paper ever gets published. If they allow me, I will also dedicate the paper to her memory.

  3. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    Against my better judgement, I sent a reply to the arXiv moderators. I know it won’t do any good, but this is what I wrote:

    I find it hard to understand this decision, since this submission
    essentially consists of the main ideas of arXiv:2109.06626,
    with a large amount of irrelevant mathematics and
    speculative physics removed, and replaced with some much
    more rigorous mathematics, and more precise modelling
    of the physics.

    It is unfair for you to post the lower quality work, and
    refuse to post the higher quality work. By doing so
    you damage my reputation, and hold back the
    progress of science.

    Of course I can remedy this to some extent by
    updating 2109.06626 to take account of the new
    methods, but my assessment is that that paper
    has grown too big and amorphous after six versions,
    and it is better from the readers’ point of view to
    start again from scratch.

    I don’t expect you to listen to rational argument,
    since you never do. I just want to record my objections
    for the benefit of posterity.

  4. Robert A. Wilson Says:

    I generally don’t go back and read my old work, and I don’t go back and read the previous 200 posts on this blog, as I believe it is better to look forward than back. And I suppose I am afraid that if I do go back, I will be embarrassed to read all the stupid things I wrote in the past. But occasionally I am curious to see what it is that visitors are reading, and I had a look at some of those old posts that people looked at today. Far from being embarrassed at my stupidity, I was amazed at how little my thinking has changed while the technical details have shifted, in some cases beyond recognition. It all goes to show that it is the physical principles that are important, not the mathematics. And the physical principles that I am working with have not changed at all in seven years.

    • Robert A. Wilson Says:

      Principle no. 1: the laboratory frame of reference is not an inertial frame.
      Principle no. 2: you cannot shield your experiment from gravity.
      Principle no. 3: Occam’s razor.

      • Robert A. Wilson Says:

        Oh, and I almost forgot:
        Principle no. 4: all intrinsic properties of elementary particles are discrete.

      • Robert A. Wilson Says:

        By contrast, most particle physicists assume:
        Principle -1: the laboratory frame of reference is an inertial frame.
        Principle -2: you can ignore gravity.
        Principle -3: the more complicated your theory, the better.
        Principle -4: all properties of elementary particles are continuous.
        All four of these anti-principles are contradicted by experiment and/or common sense, in most cases both.

  5. Woit’s Euclidean Twistor Unification slides at the Algebra, Particles and Quantum Theory Seminar, Feb. 14, 2022 – Quantum field theory Says:

    […] besides Woit, has recently been coming up against the mainstream groupthink problem: see Professor Robert Arnott Wilson’s comments on being censored by arXiv for heretical papers subm… His London uni page is here. A pre-print of his January 2022 submission to the International […]

  6. Nige Cook Says:

    I’m interested in the 6-dimensional equation 1 of your paper, SL(4, R)/Z2 = SO(3, 3).

    Lunsford’s “Gravitation and Electrodynamics Over SO(3,3)”, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Volume 43, Number 1 / January, 2004, shows that SO(3,3) unifies gravitation and electrodynamics, producing as bonus the particle spin vector.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: