Fundamental Errors in Physics by John-Erik Persson

John-Erik, I can agree the following; (also re your post on Josephsons and mine)

1. Nothing can 'prove' anything in physics.

2. Energy is found from interactions with light. Precisely how? we don't know.

3. As 'meters' are part of the system they DO influence detected values.

4. Dark energy does exist, not as 'matter', but can condense to pairs.

You don't explain what 'potential' and 'real' forces are. I could rationalise them as 'dark' and condensed particle energy (with all 3 degrees of freedom not just 2) but I suggest we can't say more.

Best

Peter

Greetings John-Erik, | I have started to read your essay, because I notice from the abstract and comments that there is some similarity to ideas I presented at FFP15 which are partly summarized in my current essay, talking about gravitation by condensation. I point out that the various entropic and emergent gravity schemes are equivalent to recent ideas that there is an analogy between the quantum critical point of BEC formation and the event horizons of Schwarzschild black holes, which are purely gravitational massive objects so make a good arena for studying gravity. | The notion of gravitation by condensation also fits well with ether-based gravity models such as what you are describing - though I have not digested that description yet. You would likely find greatly interesting also the Sink Drain model of Bayarsaikhan Choisuren, so I'll include a link to his essay as well. I am using the vertical bar character in place of carriage returns, which a glitch in the FQXi system is turning into the letter n - very annoying! | All the Best, | Jonathan

Hello again John-Erik...

I found this essay enjoyable to read, and I am somewhat in agreement with what you are trying to say, but I think there are some exaggerations where for example you say 'proves' when 'shows' or 'may show' would pass without raising an eyebrow. It is wise to learn, in the arena of theoretical Physics, that having a clear explanation for the facts considered does not mean having a better theory which considers all of the known facts. Part of the reason is that many alternate models can explain many pertinent facts, in a field like quantum gravity for example, without there being a single model that is clearly superior to the rest.

I heard perhaps 40 lectures on different flavors of quantum gravity at GR21, and every speaker talked about important advances being made using their chosen model - and the advantages thereof. Beverly Berger spoke up saying that, and Lee Smolin later reaffirmed that progress would be better served if people found ways to use advances in one model as a springboard for progress in another. That kind of cooperation or collaboration is what I live for or thrive on, because I don't see this whole competing models thing as helpful. But some of your ideas have a rather good pedigree you seem to know nothing about.

Are you familiar with the book "The Evolution of Physics" by Einstein and Infeld, which presents Modern Physics concepts in a very ether-centered view, because it was largely written while those ideas were still considered valuable insights rather than a side trip? You should also check out papers by Reg Cahill who wrote "Process Physics," which talk about infalling ether in terms of a fractal vacuum. So what you are referring to is not without merit, nor is it a dead idea, but you are overreaching a bit. I agree that MMX are widely misinterpreted as ruling out the ether hypothesis, but the reason that falls apart is rather technical.

Regards,

Jonathan

(copied reply from mine) John-Eric, Yes I see the link is dead. Try one of these;

Vimeo 100 sec video.

Youtube 100 sec Classic QM.

As foor your model, I've agreed it's novel and interesting and we must test all. But the QM test is like a complex jigsaw puzzle we're told can't be solved. There is only ONE solution (be it describable in many ways).

Your theory don't yet derive such a solution. Our classical mechanism DOES do so, and unarguably because its classical mechanics. So if you suggest our solution is 'wrong' it's the same as saying the completed jigsaw puzzle is wrong! (it also produces non integer spins, remarkable in itself!)

You may still be right if a flaw in the puzzle solution is found. Nobody has yet but you might. OR a modified s description may be consistent. Our model also works with a plane wave from a 'photon' emission interacting with detector electrons. Could you not say in a way that's not inconsistent with yours?

Very Best

Peter

John

I can't stand to see your work so low on the rankings, and although I don't have time this minute to explain why, I'm not going to delay giving you a bump in the up direction. I'm looking forward to explaining why I appreciate your work. I will return

Steven Andresen

Thank you John-Erik,

You may find also interesting this paper by Robert Laughlin:

Emergent Relativity

It shows somewhat how what I am talking about follows from some subset of the ideas you have adopted, plus one or two of his own assumptions. But you would find very interesting this FQXi web article:

Ripping apart Einstein

And these papers referenced therein:

Quantum Gravity at a Lifshitz Point and

Extended Horava gravity and Einstein-aether theory

Gotta get back to work!

Best JJD

Also the contest essay by Marc Fleury,

You have probably already seen this but worth a look

Emergent SR in Fundamental Aether

Enjoy, JJD

Responding to your message on my page

Hi John

Yes there are differences with our concepts, however mine also treats time as a physical process dependent on ether. That the interaction between ether and matter is, ether is converted to atomic force. Providing a tidy fit for Guv = Tuv. The forces are then considered to dictate the rate of causality.

A guess I do identify with your work in some ways, and this does influence the rating I assign to your essay. But besides them you give an alternative array of good arguments. You give enough of them to leave me and others thinking. At least those of us with open minds and flexible thinking.

Steve

John

My essay details a distinction, the split personalities of clocks. The front of the clock supposedly measures a property of time, but the clock hands are merely the puppet of the spring behind the clock face that forcefully drives the clock.

I know you appreciate how common false inferences are. Like people inferring quanta of light, when it could be the detecting electron that imposes that property. In the same respect I hold it as a more accurate depiction that "force drives clocks, therefore clocks measure force".

The depiction "force drives clocks, bUT clocks measier time" is a faulty summation. In this respect time is a man made falicy. The front end of the clock and its superfluous measure of time is useful for planing our day, but it is not a property of physics.

A better terminology is "rate of causality" and it is atomic forces which dictate it's rate. Photon exchange for example. The clock spring that drives the clock is made of EM forces. There is dilation, but it is not time dilation. It is force dilation, which causes variable rate of causality.

So specificly about time, time does not exist.

Steve

Hi John-Erik,

Super essay!

There are fundamental errors in physics (elephants in the house) and we have just become tolerant of them.... Thanks for bringing them to the surface.

In your post to Peter Jackson you said: "I think that the transition from light particles to light waves is still not done completely. In my opinion the wave or particle confusion should be solved by ether as particles and light as waves."

YES: The ether is particles, and light is waves!

WHY: check out my essay

https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Limuti_The_Thing_That_Is_Sp_1.pdf

We think very much alike. Do all EEs think alike?

Thanks for your most thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

Hi John-Erik,

Thanks for visiting my blog. I am glad you found the ideas interesting. And I am first to say they are not agreed upon reality. Experiments need to be made and others will need to see the usefulness of this new type of graviton before it becomes accepted.

To answer your question: There is gravity between Mercury and the Sun. I postulate that this gravity is composed of many gravitons connecting Mercury and the Sun. These many gravitons are what I call a graviton bundle and it is a "wire bundle" that is in a straight line between Mercury and the Sun. I make (a reasonable ?) calculation for the mass of this wire bundle (which will be very difficult to detect because of its long wavelength). I make another reasonable proposal that this wire bundle (graviton bundle) follows Mercury about the sun because Mercury in its orbit is always attracted by the Sun.

Two more assumptions:

1. The mass of this graviton bundle is uniformly distributed along the length of the bundle.

2. For the purpose of calculating the precession of Mercury (an angular momentum problem) I assume that the center of mass of the graviton bundle is in the middle of the bundle. Go to my web site to see the angular momentum calculation of Mercury's precession (just classical physics).

I tried to put that bunch of words above into the diagram I included in the essay. My fault for not including more words.

I remember your essay, and I believe this essay addresses some of the problems you pointed out. What I have not explicitly pointed out is that the network of gravitons that connects all the mass in the universe is "the ether" and it is this ether that supports the transmission of light. This ether is centered on the observer because the observer always brings their mass distribution with them (another diagram in my essay). And in a very interesting way the observer becomes the center of the universe. In other words Michelson-Morley did not have a chance of measuring a speed of light with respect to the ether because the light moves on the graviton network ether which is attached to the observer.

Did I just make Einstein wrong? No, I just explained why the speed of light is constant and independent of relative motion. Mass curves space-time and the distribution of mass is with respect to the observer.

And yes, all speculative stuff .....but perhaps better that the craziness that passes for current science?

Thanks very much for responding and giving me the chance to explain.

Don Limuti

Dear John-Erik Persson,

I have read your Essay and your brief note on wave-particle.

I invite you to read my Essay on wave particle and Electron Spin at: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3145 or https://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rajpal_1306.0141v3.pdf

Kamal Rajpal