Hi Peter (part 1)-
Thanks for reading the essay in more detail and I appreciate the effort to understand it. You're one of the few people to provide feedback. I get the impression that people just vote without taking the time to really understand my essay. I can deduct this from scores varying from 1 to 10, both from the community and public, without leaving comments. I don't care so much about the scores, but hope that people start to look at QFM as a more seriously alternative and use it to question current physics.
In my opinion, there is something fundamentally wrong with the way current physics is pursued and is unlikely to lead a unification of theories. Unfortunately, I have not been able to indicate all reason in my essay and the description of QFM may lack full depth since I have used references. I will indicate a few more reasons below, but a full explanation can be found in an upcoming report.
Let me give my provide a response to your feedback and specifically dissect one of your main statements:
"But I'm now convinced you're riding slightly the wrong horse. That's not because it flies in the face of GR, I have no problem
with that at all in principle, but it's because it doesn't resolve any of the big issues in physics or astronomy, and that's what we need to find. In this case we must not be distracted by theories that don't achieve that."
1. The theory does not resolve the big issues of physics.
You know that unsuccessful attempts have been made to unify Quantum Mechanics and Relativity Theory. My essay describes an attempt that unifies quantum and relativistic behavior, but in a rather unconventional way. This can only be done if one adopts the (substantiated, see motivation of the existence equation (2.1)) view that there is a deeper level of physical reality such that the notions of space and time can clearly be substantiated. Space and time, which are more or less taken as a 4-dimensional background in current theory, are now provided with a transprarant physical interpretation and its is clear that
time is not a dimension (one cannot go backward). Without this understanding it is, in my view, impossible to unify theories of physics and to comprehend their limitations. Current theories are largely mathematical frameworks. An attempt to unify these theories, or provide something fundamentally better, without a reality-based approach results in a substantial degree of abstract guessing, which unfortunately pervades current physics.
In my essay, the quantum beat process (which performs oscillation and rotation) that massive particles execute unifies quantum and relativistic behavior, which is expressed by -h=-Edt+pdx, from which e.g. the Lorentz transformation and the fundamental equations of e/m theory follow (see my website for details). I think that this result is already remarkable: with little, physically motivated formalism a lot can be obtained: insight in the character of space, time, and the derivation of all main results of e/m theory from a basically quantum equation, i.e. -h=-Edt+pdx.* No other theory has been able to do this. Although the physical scale of these results is small, they resolve 'big issues'.
2. It flies in the face of GR.
Indeed, this follows from this theory. When Einstein developed GR, he used Special Relativity as a starting point, already being based on the assumption that space and time are all pervasive (global) and continuous. This led him to GR. I maintain that, based on Kirilyuk's fundamental work, the starting assumptions of GR are incorrect. In fact, according to QFM, the 'locality' of the quantum beat process in terms of local generation of discrete space points does not allow a global description of space as an omnipresent entity. Obviously, this is intuitively very strange. Protofields are omni-present, but space points are dynamically generated in the omni-present compound of protofields.
3. The theory does not resolve the big issues of astronomy (I assume you mean cosmology) If GR is not applicable to global scales according to QFM (see point 2 and MOND seems to suggest this as well), this implies that something is fundamentally wrong with current understanding of the cosmos and GR cannot be used as a basis for development of a unified theory of physics. This is a negative result, but indicates that a fundamental reassessment of physics may be required.
The issue of dark matter may be resolved in QFM (see Kirilyuk's work), yielding equations which resemble MOND.
4. We must not be distracted by theories that don't achieve solving the big issues.
I maintain that current physics is unable to explain the 'small issues' and therefore cannot explain the 'big issues'. QFM at least tries to tackle the big issues that are apparent at quantum scale, which results in a better view of the issues at a much larger scale.
Am I riding the wrong horse slightly? Is it imaginative? First of all, QFM is self-consistent. This can be checked by consulting the reports on my website or Kirilyuk's work. I have also critically assessed QFM against many other theories and observed phenomena and no other theory has given me a convincing solution for many of the serious issues that I raised. QFM appears to me a much better than the other alternatives being pursued, although I stay open for alternatives.