Thanks for you interest Alan... The thing I like about these essay contests is the chatting and sharing of ideas. In your response you state... "but spacetime is not a physical quantity". The perspective you have is reasonable but the reason why it is reasonable is because there is never a net effect that the particles in spacetime can have on spacetime. While we say that mass can bend spacetime, it is not clear on exactly how and what exactly is bending. If there is no net effect on spacetime by the particles that exist in spacetime, then there is no reason to think that spacetime exists as anything other than a mathematical construct. However once we do that, then there is no way to show that while particles have no net effect on spacetime... it doesn't mean that there is no interaction between the energy of particles and the energy of spacetime. If that interaction is taken off the table, then we will never be able to model how a particle creates its specific associated energy fields. (Nor will we be able to come up with the internal energy structure of particles since the energy and structure of spacetime leads to the energy and structure of particles)

In any case I wish you the best of luck on promoting your ideas... GO get 'em!

10 days later

Scott Gordon

I really like this. You have set the table for 'The Universe is Otherwise', my replacement model for the standard model! You picked the best approach by focusing on the speed of light and pointing how the fixed speed causes a complete break-down of current scientific method approaches to the replacement perspective. Your conversational wording is ideal, softening the confusion of technical and energy treatments.

Breaking the impasse calls for Otherwise. We aren't just merging GR and QM. The way to the new paradigm arrives if we ignore them. The fixed nature of the scientific method leads us astray.

While your list of steps is not the way, your focus on particle/wave issues helps introduce the thinking and then the 'medium' issue arises.

Paul Schroeder

    Thanks Paul, You have great insight as you have picked up exactly what I was trying to achieve. I wrote this essay to ease people into first realizing that spacetime is a medium but not easily derived at or revealed experimentally. The next step is introducing Hierarchy of Energy theory which is the theory that I have been recently been promoting to the world of physics academia. In Hierarchy of Energy theory, spacetime is shown to be a energy medium of energy that represents the base energy tier.

    Thank you for your kind words and please if you get a chance keep abreast with my progress in bring forward Hierarchy of Energy theory in the years to come.

    Scott

    Dear Gordon, I read your informative essay and realized that it is with you that I can fruitfully discuss my essay, which contains my answers to your questions.

    Theoretical physics has reached an impasse ... but why?

    The theories of relativity and the probability of quantum mechanics mesmerized physicists and they became deaf and did not want anything else. They are pleased to be in this state.

    6) Share results. This is also a challenge. In this day of organized academia, it requires connections to the right people who may not accept the premise on which you have built your new and novel idea on. You would also require the correct academic pedigree and background to be taken seriously by those in the field, especially if the solution is truly revolutionary.

    For many years I have been promoting the neocartesian generalization of modern physics and have experienced it myself. Even the authority of Descartes is not enough for anyone to dare to understand me. Only the phrase "space-time" acts on them fascinatingly. And I say soberingly - space is matter, and matter is space that moves, since it is matter. It is necessary to distinguish geometric (mathematical) space from physical space, which is the very environment that you are talking about. In this environment, the law of constancy of the Casimir force flow (the Generalized Gauss law) applies. I invite you to discuss my essay, in which I show the successes of the neocartesian generalization of modern physics, based on the identity of Descartes' space and matter: "The transformation of uncertainty into certainty. The relationship of the Lorentz factor with the probability density of states. And more from a new Cartesian generalization of modern physics. by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich ". At the very beginning of the essay, I repeat twice the idea that rectilinear motion, in essence, is a motion around a circle of infinitely large radius and, if this radius is reduced, then in infinitesimal laws of motion according to the theory of relativity will go over to the laws of quantum mechanics.

    Next come mathematical formulas that only spoil my essay, but without them in any way. I will be pleased if you catch their main meaning and bless me for the further generalization of modern physics.

    Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris.

      Hi Dizhechko,

      Thanks for your interest... Most of us who have come up with a new theory to explain everything will agree on one thing... Those in physics academia are not ready to hear any ideas not arising from within their own ranks. For the most part they have good reasons,... Many of the outside ideas contradict known experimental results, others do not have the math required to show the ideas as being viable and the physicists have no interest in putting the math to other people's ideas.

      My essay was basically an invitation for all physicists to look at other people's ideas since it looks like finding a more fundamental foundation of physics using the scientific method is not possible.

      I have written and published a theory of everything and will be re-releasing it under the name Hierarchy of Energy theory. There is something in your theory that corresponds to Hierarchy of Energy theory and that is your idea that the property of mass is associated with spinning spacetime. However in Hierarchy of Energy theory it is represented much differently.

      I'll share with you some of Hierarchy of Energy's model which does have the math required to correlate with our current understanding. Hierarchy of Energy theory tells us that spacetime is energy... But it is energy that can never be perceived because we can only realize the energy of the two higher energy tiers in the form of E = mc^2 and E = hf which can also be written as E = (h/wavelength)c^1.

      The base energy tier is the energy of spacetime and is expressed using the term c^0 (which is the identity 1 with NO dimensions). Before the big bang all the energy in the universe was in the form of spacetime energy and only during the conditions of the big bang was it possible for the energy of spacetime to jump up to the higher energy tiers of light and then mass. After the big bang, the energy of particles could no longer become the energy tier of spacetime and the energy of spacetime can no longer become the energy of particles. That is why we have the law of conservation of energy!

      Particles in spacetime never cause a net displacement of spacetime because if they did, part of the energy of particles would be lost into displacing spacetime and eventually the particle will cease to exist.

      So to get back to your idea... Photons are the linear motion of the photon's energy in the energy of spacetime where the photon moves spacetime back and forth (or forth and back) leaving spacetime undisturbed. But for particles containing mass, the only way to replace the displaced spacetime is to move it in a circular pattern so it replaces itself. You stated that the property of mass is associated with spinning spacetime. In hierarchy of Energy theory, the property of mass is created by energy in the highest energy tier. Spacetime is energy and there is the extent of this comparison.

      Hierarchy of Energy theory independently derives E = mc^2...

      Since we have different ideas and approaches, we would be naturally at odds, but we are not here to convince each other that our ideas are valid, we are here to convince other. I wish you all the best in promoting your ideas and wish you great success.

      Scott

      Dear Scott Gordan,

      Thank you for a very interesting essay.

      I was wondering if you have any suggestions of how to change the scientific method so that we get past this impasse?

      All the best,

      Noson Yanofsky

        Hi Noson,

        Appreciate the kind comment... I wrote this essay questioning the using of the scientific method to find new physics. Many people are assuming that if I am saying that the scientific method in not useful in finding a solution that I do not believe in the scientific method and therefore my ideas are not valid science. Ironically that is not accurate. While the scientific method cannot be used to find a new theoretical physics model... once a new theoretical physics model is found, the scientific method can be used to validate it. So we do not need to change the scientific method, what we need is for physicists to really get out of their scientific "box".

        Even more interestingly, physics academia poo-poo physics philosophers... Lawrence Krause had said very disparaging remarks about that field. He does not seem to realize that it will be philosophy that brings us the complete understanding of physics and the theory of everything.

        I have proposed a model in a theory entitled, "Hierarchy of Energy theory" - It is mathematically based. It requires an entire book to learn it and it represents a missing course in undergraduate physics. Like I said, everything can be derived from hierarchy of energy theory but this theory cannot be found using the scientific method. How I came up with this theory would make an interesting story, but in any case, you can read the response I written to Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich above to get an idea of what the theory entails.

        All the best to you Noson and please stay healthy

        Scott

        Dear Scott Gordon, where did you see here others whom you can convince. Here everyone has his own idea, and he unwaveringly defends it, so it is very difficult to get a high rating if there is no agreement on mutual support with anyone. I give high ratings to those who visit my page and leave her comment on it regarding the neo-Cartesian generalization of modern physics, even if we do not agree.

        Regards, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich

        I am not here to convince others... I didn't even mention my theory in my essay - I only pointed out why I think theoretical physicists are in such a bind. I'll make a more concerted effort after the updated version of my book is freely available (the old version has too many "crackpot" aspects - Not in the theory but in the names I applied to the new ideas like calling the component building block of spacetime a GOD Entity, where GOD stands for Gordon Omnipresent Dot. Apparently, that is like kryptonite to them. LOL! In any case, it did serve a purpose by allowing the theory to be out for 5 years. It would be very difficult for anyone to say they came up with it first. I will also be making teaching videos later to go with the new book... That's when the fun starts! In any case - I like seeing the work of others, compare the approaches, etc... All the best to you Dizheckho.

        13 days later

        Dear Scott S Gordon,

        You ask why is the speed of light the same in all frames? I think probably because Einstein could not relate frames in relative motion without a 'standard' velocity to compare to.

        You then say that all waves require a medium yet MM experiments concluded there was no medium. Actually, they concluded that there was no evidence for a universal medium. That leaves room for a local medium for propagation of light.

        If one proposes that the local gravitational field is exactly that medium, then all MM experiments would effectively find zero 'ether wind', which is exactly what they found. In his 1923 Michelson-Gale experiments, the results are best explained by gravity as ether [see my ref 11].

        If the real universe-filling gravitation field is identified with the [abstract] 'space' then the 'energy of spacetime' is the energy of the field and Einstein said "there is no space absent field."

        It seems that this interpretation is largely compatible with your model, and I agree with you that the best physical model should focus on energy as the prime aspect of reality.

        I hope you will read my essay, Deciding on the nature of time and space, and comment on it.

        Best regards,

        Edwin Eugene Klingman

          Dear Dr Klingman,

          Everything you have said is completely compatible with my essay - I read your essay and I think your ideas and concepts are correct. There is a reason why everyone is stumbling in actually getting to the correct model and the mathematics that expresses it.

          I wrote this essay to give the reason why we cannot figure out the correct model. In actuality, I have an alternative motive. In the future you will hear about Hierarchy of Energy theory. I am introducing this theory to physics academia slowly. It is a revolutionary take on physics rebuilding the entire field on a more fundamental foundation.

          Everything you have said in incorporated into this theory and I think you would be very interested in it. We cannot use our math to derive it and we cannot perform an experiment that will expose it. And yet, the theory derives from the more fundmental foundation every law of physics and every validated theory we have without changing the math.

          I will be giving two presentations at the up coming virtual APS meeting in a few days - I really think you would enjoy the talks... 1) http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR20/Session/Y11.8 and 2) http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR20/Session/S01.31

          I realize you have your own theory and I am not trying to convince you one way or the other - (Our job is convince others of our theories). However I see how you are using the gravitational field as a basis. We tend to use things we know to explain things we don't know. I previously presented a paper entitled, "Dark Energy's Role in General Relativity"

          http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR19/Session/H11.8

          Since you line of thoughts and ideas are very conforming with mine I really think you will enjoy Hierarchy of Energy theory. Unfortunately it requires an entire textbook to learn. I am re-writing the book and releasing it by the end of the year as a free download along with teaching videos. You may want to keep an eye on my progress.

          All the best to you!

          Scott

          13 days later

          all knowledge starts with a question.. nice work well and simply phrased. could realligment of in the philosophy of physics lead us to new physics ?read/rate my take -https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.All the best.

          17 days later

          Dear Scott,

          I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

          While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

          I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

          Warm Regards, `

          Vladimir