Hi Ilja:

Your statement - "The consideration of a sound analogon of Lorentz symmetry suggests that a global symmetry which becomes localized in a more fundamental theory is doomed to disappear in the next more fundamental theory." is vindicated by my paper -- "What is Fundamental - Is C the Speed of Light". that describes the fundamental physics of antigravity missing from the widely-accepted mainstream physics and cosmology theories resolving their current inconsistencies and paradoxes. The missing physics depicts a spontaneous relativistic mass creation/dilation photon model that explains the yet unknown dark energy, inner workings of quantum mechanics, and bridges the gaps among relativity and Maxwell's theories. The model also provides field equations governing the spontaneous wave-particle complimentarity or mass-energy equivalence. The key significance or contribution of the proposed work is to enhance fundamental understanding of C, commonly known as the speed of light, and Cosmological Constant, commonly known as the dark energy.

The paper not only provides comparisons against existing empirical observations but also forwards testable predictions for future falsification of the proposed model.

I would like to invite you to read my paper and appreciate any feedback comments.

Best Regards

Avtar Singh

Ilja,

As time grows short, I recheck those that I have commented on to see if I've rated them. I find that I rated yours on 2/10.

Hope you can get a chance to look at mine.

Jim Hoover

    I have taken a look and would give you 1/10, it simply makes no sense to me. But after two or three initial votes, I have decided not to vote anymore, recognizing that my own participation would distort my vote.

    Your 2/10 vote was useful for me because it made visible to me that a single negative vote was sufficient to kick me out of the leading group with no chance of return. Given that I do not even want to write things which everybody likes, it is now clear to me that I would not even like to win here. Science cannot be a democracy, so to decide about a winner in a scientific contest by voting is kind of absurd, and it is fine that this attempt to participate has remembered me about this.

    Dear Mr Schmelzer,

    Very relevant general essay,

    I have a question, have you already thought about a gravitational aether instead of a luminiferous one ? it seems that this aether is gravitational.I have this conclusion in my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm sphères Inside this universal sphere in inserting and considering this DM and DE and a serie of spherical volumes for the serie of uniqueness.

    Best Regards

      Dear Ilja,

      I must agree. A democratic decision is a kind of sociological tool to keep the people calm. Worse, they suggest to be open by allowing essays to contradict their own rules of participation (non-topic, worse style, copied texts from old papers, mathematical musings beyond any contribution found in Scientific American or similar journals etc.). I would prefer a much more stringent selection process and the resulting essays to be all examined for possible winners by the panel of judges. The restrictions on eligibility may compensate for the final selection process by the judges and would reduce downvoting, since voting isn't anymore a valid criteria to become a finalist.

      Of course. My own ether theory is, first of all, gravitational. See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity for details. After this, some claims that fermions do not fit into that theory motivated me to study the standard model, with an even greater success, namely explaining the most important parts (gauge group, numbers of fermions and their charges) from a surprisingly simple ether model. See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter for details. Both published in peer-reviewed journals, which is very hard for ether theories.

      After this, my ether theory is a TOE - all fields ruled by a wave equation containing c are ether waves. Everything else would be really strange - one field with velocity c is an ether wave, another one with the same c not? I don't believe.

      Ilja,

      If I was to suggest what would be the most elementary theory change it would be time.

      The problem is that we experience reality as flashes of cognition and naturally think of time as the point of the present moving past to future. Physics codifies this as measures of duration, between events.

      The underlaying fact is that it is change turning future to past, as in tomorrow becomes yesterday, because the earth turns. Which makes time an effect, similar to temperature. Time is individual frequency, while temperature is masses of frequency and amplitude.

      We could use ideal gas laws to correlate temperature and volume, but don't have that intellectual hang up about temperature.

      Different clocks can run at different rates because they are separate actions. All things equal, a faster clock uses more energy, like metabolism.

      Time is asymmetric because it is a measure of action and action is inertial. The earth turns one direction, not the other.

      The simultaneity of the present is dismissed by arguing different events would be viewed in different order from different locations, but that is no more consequential than seeing the moon as it was a moment ago, simultaneous with seeing stars as they were years ago. It is the energy which is conserved/exists as the present, not the information recorded in it. The fact the event radiated away the energy is both why it no longer exists and that we can observe that it did exist.

      This also goes to determinism, as it is the occurrence of events which calculates their outcome. Probabilities turning into actualities and then residual. All the laws governing this process might be completely deterministic, but we don't know the total input into an event, prior to its occurrence, because much of this is being carried at the speed of light, so that would mean knowing information before it could arrive.

      Also reading through some of the comments and responses, I just thought I'd put this up as something you might be interested over the long term.

      Regards,

      John B Merryman

      Ilja,

      My rating on 2/10 was 7. I keep track of my ratings because I have been a victim of 1 and 2 ratings w/o comments as well. I'm sorry you were a victim too.

      Jim

        Thanks for these explainations, I have a kind of same reasoning about ths aether.At the difference that I have considered particles of gravitation correlated with the dark matter, it is intuitive like my equation and hypothetical, here is my equation with this DM non baryonic with m(nb) this matter non baryonic and l their linear velocity, E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² I say me that this DM is an important piece of puzzle.The Dark energy I consider it like an anti gravitational spherical push.

        Congratulations for your essay and your line of reasoning, best regards

        Dear Ilja,

        I read your essay with great interest. But after months of developing my ideas for the essay, I look at the other essays trough the glasses of my own ideas. So I want to make a few comments on what I see in your essay and I found most interesting.

        In my essay I show that any realistic theory must have conventional elements. And by realistic I mean, any theory that has concepts, that are not are not directly observable. That means any physical theory. (For instance the metric field is not observable.) I did not work out this idea much in my own essay, but I can see this topic all over your essay.

        First of all to explain, how conventionality comes in in a closed theory: a closed theory does not fix which statements are used to define the theoretical terms it uses (analytical statements) and which are observational consequences (empirical statements). For instance in your example of the Lorenz invariant sound equation, the equation is perfectly Galilei invariant, if by changing the velocity of the reference frame also the velocity of sound changes (and the use of the first order continuity equation). However if one uses the sound equation to measure length, then the sound velocity becomes a constant and the equation is Lorenz invariant. (I'm not so sure, if this was the point, you wanted to make there.)

        Most disturbing for me (since in my essay, I defend a Bohr like view on QM), is the idea, that also randomness and determinism within a theory might be conventional. Finally we do not know/see, which relations are causal and which are definitory. Or which properties of an object are 'real' (whatever that means) and which are defined by measurement. Finally that would explain, why there are some many interpretations of QM with the same observational consequences.

        I think a similar view was also Einstein's as it is shown in Don Howard's 'Einsteins Philosophy of science'. Most prominent Poincare explicitly endorses such a conventional view.

        I hope this my reading of your essay is not too far off.

        Best regards,

        Luca

          My point is not that randomness vs. determinism is conventional, but that they easily change if one changes the degree of fundamentality/approximation. So the quantum predictions are random, objectively, same for Brownian motion. And classical Hamilton mechanics are deterministic, objectively. There can be no convention to make Hamilton mechanics random.

          In general, conventionalism is a problem only for those who follow the positivistic idea that one can derive something from observables. In Popperian science, a theory contains a lot of metaphysical elements, what matters are the predictions made and, then, simplicity. If different theories differ only in conventions, it means a preference for the simplest convention, and if they are equal in simplicity, so what - no reason to care.

          Oh, I see. 2/10 was a date. I'm German, I would write that date 10.2. and have completely misinterpreted your comment as giving me 2 of 10 points. Sorry.

          Whatever, this has not changed my count for you, because, as I have explained, I decided not to vote, and not given one. And the point that it was a single vote which has kicked me out of the leading group I have recognized independently.

          Dear Ilja

          If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

          Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

          My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

          Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

          For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

          My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

          By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

          To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

          Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

          Kind regards

          Steven Andresen

          Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

          Ilja,

          Great job and analysis, nicely presented. You coolly and systematically demolish common overcomplacency without ostensibly selling new physics to those happy with the illogicality they're wedded to and embedded in. I agree most on SR, as my prev essays back to 2011 but this year I'm interested that your QM 'interpretation' is a combination of Bohm & Copenhagen with "classical Bayesian probability theory interpreted as the logic of plausible reasoning".

          I implore you to read my essay (similar conclusions) and carefully follow the classical mechanistic sequence using more sensible assumptions which reproduces QM predictions. Declan Traill's essay shows the code and plot gives the magic CHSH >2 with detection 'loophole' closed. Few have followed it so far as it takes care and a complex analysis most preconditioned brains can't manage.

          I'm interested how you'll get on. There's also a 100 sec video giving a glimpse, including non-integer spins, but it really needs 100 minutes to absorb & process.

          Well done.

          Peter

          18 days later

          Dear Ilja,

          I think your essay asks a really interesting and relevant question. You might enjoy reading Masterton, Zenker, and Gärdenfors (2017) EJPS article: "Using conceptual spaces to exhibit conceptual continuity through scientific theory change." They also address this question, with a detailed analysis of the changes and continuities involved in the relativity theories.

          Also in regard to the interplay between deterministic and stochastic theories, I agree with your general observations and would like to recommend an article that offers relevant case studies: Werndl (2009) Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics: "Are deterministic descriptions and indeterministic descriptions observationally equivalent?"

          The contest entries I've read so far includes Gibbs's "A universe made of stories". Regarding symmetries, he discusses an example from geometry, yet he concludes oppositely from you. While I'm more inclined to agree with your analysis, I wanted to flag this so maybe you too could discuss this directly.

          Best wishes,

          Sylvia - Seek Fundamentality, and Distrust It

          Write a Reply...