Discussions on M.W. Evans' GUFT-problems

with kind invitation to MWE and all other interested persons for participation

Please, send your email contributions to


Polemics are not welcome.

To last contribution: click here

Alexandre Szames wrote on Friday 12 November 2004 20:35:

I have forwarded yesterday your posting and it seems to me that Myron's message below should be interpreted as a reply. I am just a science writer but I have my limits and this has become a little too complicated for me to follow - thus I appreciate counterpoints and debates.

Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

at first many thanks for your support.

It's a pitty that MWE refuses to discuss with me directly. I shall wait a week whether MWE sends further mails and then reply to all together. MWE's mail below gives no new point of view.
. . . With (*) MWE claims an equation with two different types of quantities on both sides, i.e. a type mismatch, as if he would claim apple = pear, or if one would claim scalar = vector.

What Evans replies in his mail is not helpful. The only help would be if he could explain why an apple is a pear or reversely. But nobody is able to do that: The definitions of the two (mathematical) fruits are different.

Now, Evans is a scholarly man who claims the Nobel prize for his scientific work on his website. So he should help himself if possible. Even if I could help him (but as explained above nobody can change apples to pears) he would reject me with a lot of further polemics. So there is no remedy for MWE, since, of course, only a real magician could help him.

Lar Volker wrote on Saturday 13 November 2004 16:25:


Fine. One dispute. Go back to it later.

This man has done a tremendous amount of work that is consistent. He is sick with a post traumatic stress disorder and needs help, not strife at the present.

The fact remains that both Einstein and Cartan knew that the metric needed torsion to allow for electromagnetism. Evans has found several methods to add it. Help him, do not attack. Eventually you will find common ground.

Write a supporting analysis article. Regardless of one detail that can be cleared up, there are 20 places where agreement can be found. Dig into it and show the antisymmetric metric exists. Ride coattails.

Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

I do not know your educational background, so let it me say it at first very simply:

Evans' theory lacks from a very essential point where it is   i n c o n s i s t e n t   , comparable with a three-legged chair one legg of which is rotten: That chair looks like a chair, but you cannot use it as a chair.

That rotten leg is the statement that
"if there exists a symmetric metric, then there must exist an antisymmetric metric"
exemplified on the top of p.23 of


by the special R3 case where he claims the validity of the equation

            (*)            − [dx12 + dx22 + dx12] = ds2 = dx1^dx2 + dx2^dx3 + dx3^dx1

which is wrong due to type mismatch.

The only help that I can give MWE is to let him know that (*) is erroneous. As you know his replies contain a lot of polemics.

What he should do is remove that equation and the statement about the existence of the «antisymmetric metric», which is wrong already in the well-known simple R3 case.

What else? That is Evans' problem, not mine! I do not know how to close the gap. My opinion: It's impossible.

But again: Evans refuses to accept that truth.

So tell me what could I do else? Shall I accept an erroneous equation (*) since Evans is sick???

And, I have already checked another article of his as you can see on my website,


that contains essential calculation errors. I have corrected the wrong calculations, but then I get contradictions to his main statements in that article. Hence the statements are erroneous.

Shall I cover that tacitly, or what? Probably the situation is the same in the other 20 or more articles.

What counts is not quantity but quality!

Dave Feustel wrote on Sunday 14 November 2004 04:49 am:

refering to:
«What else? That is Evans' problem, not mine! I do not know how to close the gap. My opinion: It's impossible.»

Derive some impossible results or results not produced or even contradicted by lab experiments with non-linear optics.
Dave Feustel

Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

MWE uses mathematics as an essential tool to derive his "theory". You will admit that without mathematics no GUFT would exist. Therefore the validity of GUFT cannot be reduced to its experimental evidence:

A necessary condition for its valitity is its formal mathematical correctness.

So it's sufficient to point out examples of essential abuse of mathematics in MWE's book-preprint. Evans is kindly requested to remove these monita (if he can).

You have some knowledge of math (though - as I guess - you have no sufficient knowledge about differential forms), therefore I can give you an example closer to Evans' claim (*), which is of mathematical type, or what do you think?

The type mismatch in (*) is closely related to an equation that claims

            scalar = vector (in R3)

ω1 is a differential scalar while ω2 is of vector type. ω1 = ds2 is the squared line element of a curve (in Euclidean R3), hence a number (=scalar). The differential 2-form appears as the vectorial surface element of a surface in R3 normal to the direction (1,1,1) and hence is of vector type.

For that you should have a look at chap.5 (Vector Integration) of the book "Vector Analysis" in Schaum's Outlines Series. Surface integrals are treated with examples in the subsection SURFACE INTEGRALS. The surface element is there denoted by dS (with CAPITAL S) not to be mixed up with the line element ds that appears already at the end of chap. 3. (I recommend to read chap.8 (Tensor Analysis) also, which will help a lot to keep you away from mathematical errors.)

You can see the problem with MWE's equation (*) also from Carroll's book


ω2 is another writing of the skew symmetric matrix

              0   1 −1
            −1   0   1
              1 −1   0

which is the (0,2)-tensor εik in R3 that belongs to the "space" Λ2 (Carroll p.21) while the line element (Carroll p.25) does not.

Concerning other errors of MWE's:
Did you ever read my criticisms on Evans' phaselaw paper in

http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/PHYSICAL_OPTICS1.htm ?

I doubt that. Otherwise you would have observed that the necessary condition of correct calculations is essentially violated also in that article on the level of elementary integration calculus. Hence that article should have been withdrawn by Evans.

That's a realistic description of the present state of Evans' GUFT.

MWE to Lar Felker on Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:30 +0100:

Gerhard Bruhn has a long record of incompetently attacking people. Since he asks, I think that Gerhard can resign from his job, and go back to school. My technical answers to Bruhn have been posted several times. They are as follows:

1) gμν gμν = 4 (scalar, ω2).

2) e(1) × e(2) = i e(3)* is a well knwon basis, the complex circular basis.

Is this guy thick or just trying to be funny?


Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

I guess MWE has problems with reading or understanding texts accurately. I neither denied
1) gμν gμν = 4 (for the 4-dim. case)             nor             2) e(1) × e(2) = i e(3)*             (or where???).

My argument is simply:
ω2 is a differential 2-form that cannot be equal to the scalar square of the line element ds, i.e. to ω1 = ds2.

The equation (*) written in the terminology of Schaum's Outlines Series (Vector Analysis)means

            ds2 = dS (Surface element of the surface x+y+z = const),

which is evidently erroneous!

However, we have some progress: We have limited the disagreement to one simple equation:

MWE claims

(*)            − [dx12 + dx22 + dx32] = ds2 = dx1^dx2 + dx1^dx1 + dx3^dx1

to be true while I have argued that (*) in invalid due to type mismatch (see my remarks to Dave Feustel above).

Additional remarks: Equation 1) is a simple consequence of the fact that the matrices (gμν) and (gμν) are symmetric and each the inverse of the other one: This yields

            gμνgμρ = gνμgμρ = δνρ ,

hence by equating the indices of δνρ one obtains the sum of diagonal elements of the unit matrix (δνρ), i.e. the dimension of the involved manifold - 2 for a surface, 3 for a 3-dimensional manifold and 4 for a spacetime-manifold. To attibute that as Einstein's discovery is surely exaggerated; I would say it's "folklore". On the other hand, MWE's result "=4" in 1) shows that MWE dealt with 4-dimensional spacetime.

MWE's equation 2) holds for a cyclic complex basis in 3-dimensional space, since the cross-product yielding vectors again cannot be extended to higher dimensions.

I suggest that MWE reduces his polemics in that situation and tries to understand the facts.

MWE to Franklin and Dave on Tuesday 16 Nov 2004 14:31:

These notes are for a second appendix to the book and for posting on www.aias.us. They prove straightforwardly that the existence of the well known tetrad (vierbein) implies the existence of the symmetric and antisymetric metrics and the general tensor metric. This is the eighth Bruhn rebuttal. (I have rebutted him five times, David Hamilton once and, indirectly, Corneliu Ciubotariu once). In this case Bruhn made another very trivial error which is corrected in my eqns. (17) and (18) of the attached.

In my opinion Bruhn is deliberately misrepresenting my work to this group and to the world, because his errors are so trivial that no genuine professor of mathematics would ever make them. This is why I feel that the appropriate disciplinary action should be taken against Bruhn by his Chair and Dean. In other words these are not genuine errors, but deliberate harassment. In my experience many appointments to academia are made internally on a who you know basis, so are uncompetitive. The genuine scientists are often left out in the cold, so must make their own wisdom.

"........................................ for now I see
Peace to corrupt no less than war to waste."

John Milton, "Paradise Lost", 1667.

Attachment: antisymmetricmetric.pdf (handwritten, title THE ANTISSYMMETRIC METRIC)

Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

The attachment antisymmetricmetric.pdf deals with the 4-dimensional spacetime. Therefore MWE has left now the R3-problem (*) of p.23 of his preprint


without having given any satisfying reply.

Thus, the objection against (*) is not refuted.

MWE to all on Wednesday 17 Nov 2004 12:21:

Alejandro Buchmann,
Technical Univeristy of Darmstadt,

Dear Dean Buchmann,

I wish to register a strong formal complaint against Dr. G. Bruhn and request appropriate disciplinary action to be taken against him.

1) Dr Bruhn has made several trivially erroneous attacks against my work and in my opinion this is defamatory. The repeated attacks amount to first degree harassment. This conduct brings your University into disrepute becasue first degeree (or aggravated) harassment is a felony. Any member of staff of a reputable university that commits a felony is normally dismissed for misconduct.

2) Dr Bruhn has comandeered the e mail listing of the Alpha Foundation for Advanced Study (AIAS), of which I am Director, and has spread this defamation to my colleagues. This has annoyed and disturbed several of them.

3) Dr Bruhn has posted this defamation on websites and has approached scientific editors in efforts to defame me. He has also approached one colleague at CERN, Dr Caspers, with the same intent.

The work of AIAS has attracted one and a half million hits this year and is rigorously correct, being based on differential geometry. Others and myself have corrected Bruhn on several occasions, but his harassment and defamation continues. His conduct reveals that he is technically not able to assess scientific work. We at AIAS find his repeated defamation offensive and unscientific.

Appropriate disciplinary action would be dismissal, loss of salary, benefits and pension.

Cordially Yours,

Myron W. Evans,
AIAS Director.

Gerhard W. Bruhn replied:

A remarkable contribution of MWE to scientific discussion, really!

After that intermezzo back to science:

You'll find the GAP in             http://www.aias.us/book01/chap2-cr3.pdf
on p.22 between the eqns. (2.7) and (2.8). The statement
« Because εk is dual to εij by geometry, then qkr(S)εr must be dual to qij(A).»
is still correct. But then it follows a verbal attempt of justifying (2.9) starting with « So ... » without any arithmetical justification.

That missing calculation is the GAP.

Of course, the 2-form − ½ qij(A) dxi^dxj exists (why not?). But it cannot be equated with ds2.

MWE is kindly asked to close the gap by a convincing calculation - if possible.

The 4-dimensional case is treated by MWE with the eqns. (2.16) and (2.17). While (2.16) is correct equ. (2.17) shows the analogous type mismatch: Writing out (2.17) by using the matrices (2.14) and (2.15) we obtain as Evans' claim here

(**)            dx02 − dx12 − dx22 − dx32 = 1/3 [dx0^dx1 + dx0^dx2 + dx0^dx3 + dx1^dx2 + dx2^dx3 + dx3^dx1] .

No matter how, this type mismatch cannot be removed by aposteriori explanations as in MWE's article antisymmetricmetric.pdf .