Einstein and the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century

In 1926, when the scientific world was still a-puzzling and a-wondrin over the wave-particle duality of light, Einstein asked a pal, Emil “Hurry” Rupp, to conduct an experiment that would settle the matter. If anyone could do it, thought Einstein, it was Rupp who was considered the latest and greatest experimental physicists of the day.

The experiment involved so-called canal rays produced in a gas discharge tube. When an electric field passes across a gas at low pressure, the tube shines ‘n’ glows due to the movement of electrons from the cathode to the anode (so-called cathode rays). But if a hole is made in the cathode, so-called canal rays appear startĀ  a-streamin and a-strayin’ through the hole in the opposite direction to the cathode rays.

The question that Einstein asked Rupp to resolve was whether the light from canal rays was wave-likeĀ  or particle-like.

The matter was settled when Rupp said he could see with his own eyes that the light formed interference patterns. That proved it must be wave-like. Einstein presented the result as evidence in his own interpretation of quantum mechanics.

But nobody else could see these interference patterns and physicists soon began to doubt the veracity of Rupp’s work. In 1935 he publicly retracted five of his scientific paper in the previous year claiming to be suffering from “psychasthenia linked to psychogenic semiconsciousness”.

Rupp turned out to be the greatest scientific fraudster of the 20th century, surpassing even Hendrick Schoen from Bell Labs in his boldness and audacity (and mental health). It later emerged that everything Rupp had done in the previous ten years was a fraud.

Einstein swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

Now Jeroen “Kongen” van Dongen at the Institute for History and Foundations of Science at Utrecht University in the Netherlands has re-analysed Einstein’s role in the controversy. He says the evidence “suggests a strong theoretical prejudice on Einstein’s part” which led him to ignore evidence that Rupp’s the experiments were a sham and a-rigged.

Poor old Einstein! But I know ya’ll will forgive him

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/0709.3099: Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the Canal Ray Experiments on Wave-particle Duality: Scientific Fraud and Theoretical Bias

And: arxiv.org/abs/0709.3226: The Interpretation of the Einstein-Rupp Experiments and their Influence on the History of Quantum Mechanics

9 Responses to “Einstein and the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th century”

  1. [...] read more | digg story bizzdirect @ 10:48 am [filed under Uncategorized [...]

  2. A real fraud is string theory.For proof that the dimension must be 3+1 see
    Our Almost Impossible Universe:
    Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely

    summarized on my blog.

  3. Our Almost Impossible Universe:
    Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely
    shows a bigger fraud, string theory. The dimension must be 3+1.

  4. David Dixon says:

    Your writing style is a-nnoyin’ and a-bysmal.

  5. jackie cox says:

    Lets evaluate the lorentz equation to words—you leave earth, traveling faster than the speed of light, you travel for a while and then return to earth where you started, also traveling faster than the speed of light. You arrive back on earth before you left, time travel-true or false?——an independent observer watching from a distance, times you leaving earth and returning to earth. a certain amount of time transpired while you were gone, therefore you arrived back on earth after you left. Lorentz threw out the formula because it exposed a falacy of science and mixing unit of measures and time—Einstein added some more math gibberish, stating himself and maybe one or two others were able to understand the equation,wasting and confusing students for a hundred years, academic ventures, in the education business, not the business of truth– I have never read anything einstein wrote or said that he didn’t take from someone else, a complete babbling fraud

  6. jackie cox says:

    bill gates/buffet foundation and einstein have a lot in common. They never came up with anything original on their own, they are both fakes and frauds

  7. jackie cox says:

    some people will write anything just to read themselves, kinda like hinestin

  8. jackie cox says:

    actual math is so simple, you may wonder how it merits a degree

  9. Letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee

    Voorburg, June 10, 2008

    Norwegian Nobel Institute
    For the attention of Prof. Dr. G. Lundestad
    Henrik Ibsens gate 51
    NO-0255 Oslo
    Norway

    Dear Sir,

    I would like to inform the Committee of the Norwegian Nobel Institute of an issue that I think is relevant to the Nomination process.

    Sometimes omissions occur in science. I want to draw your attention to such an omission in the science Theoretical Physics. The enclosed article “The Equivalence of Magnetic and Kinetic Energy” published in the peer review journal Galilean Electrodynamics deals with this omission.

    The error mentioned involves serious scientific consequences. During the past 10 years I have been informing scientists hereof. Although they cannot disqualify the article they ignore it completely.

    Their attitude obstructs further scientific development. Therefore disciplines Quantum Mechanics (QM), Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED), Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD) and String Theories cannot be considered to be scientific anymore.

    It is my opinion that the Committee of the Norwegian Nobel Institute take my observation into consideration in the Nomination process. The scientists deliberately obstruct further developments which could be for the benefit of mankind.

    Any physicist can verify the article qualifying these science disciplines because the basic premises are proven false.

    Please see the web page http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/incompetent%20science.htm

    In this site my statement is also within reach for those who are not practiced in Quantum Mechanics.

    Hoping you will consider my statement after consulting the website mentioned above, I remain

    Sincerely,

    Carel van der Togt
    Netherlands

    Voorburg, July 14th, 2008

    Norwegian Nobel Institute
    For the attention of Prof. Dr. G. Lundestad
    Henrik Ibsens gate 51
    NO-0255 Oslo
    Norway

    Dear Sir,

    I refer to my letter of June 20th, 2008 to the Nobel Committee addressed to you. For 10 years I have been trying to persuade scientists to correct this omission, hoping and expecting their integrity, ethical mentality and professionalism motivating them to take the necessary action. But I must conclude that my approach has been fruitless. Therefore regretfully I have decided that a more
    aggressive, less respectful approach is needed.

    I presume there is no positive incentive for scientists to correct the scientific error, so they do not act. I can understand that because such an action would imply far-reaching consequences regarding their nowadays accepted theory. But this should not be an issue, and does not make their attitude acceptable. The omission has to be and will be corrected in due course.

    To be able to receive funds on behalf of developing a fusion reactor based on the alternative physics of ether, the scientific possibility of ether has to be recognized. I’m convinced that it is already possible to apply nuclear fusion commercially. I do not know whether you verified the purpose of my
    article sent to you. No science journal nor scientist was able to make any scientific argument against it. Nevertheless my theory was refused by all science journals under the pretext of my statement not being actual or relevant!
    When you discover an error please notify me so I can stop my quest and end this ordeal.

    Social and environmental issues as well as the limited fossil energy sources in the world are my earnest motivation to ignore the personal motives of those who oppose the correction. A scientific debate should determine whether or not ether is an alternative option. The debate should not be blocked by referees and other scientists who are objecting for sole personal reasons.

    I therefore have to decide that I shall email in September 2008 the above mentioned letter to the Nobel Committee worldwide to thousands of scientists, science journalists, editors, newspapers and others to force a breakthrough. I will put the letter on my website as well. Although I would rather not proceed this way, I nevertheless feel compelled to do so, forced as I feel by the disobligingness of those approached by me. Herewith I am giving you early notice in order to afford the Nobel
    Committee ample time to consider the consequences of my course of action.

    With highest respect,

    sincerely,

    Carel van der Togt
    Netherlands