Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 5/29/14 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Margaret Thank you for the mail and for good words about my article. I...

Margriet O'Regan: on 5/29/14 at 4:56am UTC, wrote Hello John-Erik And yet another essay from 'outside the box' !!!! Bravo....

John-Erik Persson: on 5/24/14 at 17:43pm UTC, wrote Gbenga I have now read your article for this year. I regard your article...

John-Erik Persson: on 5/24/14 at 17:05pm UTC, wrote Judy I have read your article about eugenics. Your article is about very...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 5/23/14 at 19:59pm UTC, wrote DISREGARD THE TYPO-ERROR It read like this. But I wondered why you are...

Gbenga Ogungbuyi: on 5/23/14 at 19:56pm UTC, wrote Dear John-Erik Persson, Your essay is highly scientific using purely the...

John-Erik Persson: on 5/22/14 at 13:38pm UTC, wrote Judy I am not advocating a pet theory and I have never said that I have a...

Judy Nabb: on 5/22/14 at 6:42am UTC, wrote John Eric Your essay started encouragingly but I can only agree with some...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: "Coins always have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Eckard Blumschein: "Steve, Darwin contradicted to the view of Parmenides, ..., and Einstein..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "Joe,do you understand that the universe is finite like our series of..." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "this second law is so important,my theory of spherisation and these quantum..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: How Should Humanity Steer the Future? Essay Contest (2014) [back]
TOPIC: Light Without Energy by John-Erik Persson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 7, 2014 @ 15:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

This article presents alternative interpretations to the empirical evidences behind the theory of relativity and the quantum theory of light. These interpretations indicate the existence of an ether. It is demonstrated that the absurdities existing in modern physics can be eliminated. However, the implied ether must not only exist; the ether must have very remarkable properties. It must have its own state of aggregation and light does not transfer energy.

Author Bio

The author is retired and has a background with an MS in electrical engineering and has been employed in the defense material administration. The author is a member of Natural Philosophy Association (NPA). More information on NPA homepage.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Mar. 8, 2014 @ 09:08 GMT
John-Erik,

There was a line in your essay which caught my attention:

"Gravity theories based on particles moving towards, or from, a massive body have been suggested."

Can you provide references for these please. I'm sorry, but I have my own wave/particle solution so I'm more interested in a non-ether picture of reality. I did like your attitude of questioning the foundations of physics and re-interpretations of empirical experiments. I'm not quite sure that the essay answers the contest title question though.

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 17, 2014 @ 12:25 GMT
Alan

I replayed to this but my answer is down on this list

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 12, 2014 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Mr. Persson,

Although I did not understand any of your essay, I do wish you well in the competition.

As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my essay, REALITY, ONCE, everything in the real Universe is unique, once. Every idea expressed in your essay seemed to deal only with perfect abstract identical concepts. For instance, you wrote: “The real motion of light is described by a vector sum of wave velocity and ether wind.” (?) Respectfully sir, reality is not descriptive, and as reality is unique, it cannot possibly be described by the use of seeming perfect identical abstract vector sums or perfect abstract wave velocities.

The real Universe is deceptively simple. All surfaces travel at the default speed of light. All non-surfaces travel at a speed less that the default speed of light. Obviously, surfaces are not fixed linear or binary quantities and nether are non-surfaces. Different bits of surfaces and non-surfaces constantly exchange positions, guaranteeing that each seeming part of the real Universe will always be unique, once.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 10:13 GMT
To Joe Fisher

Thank you for wishing me good luck. Sorry that you did not understand anything. Since you said that we cannot describe reality, how do you mean that we shall do physics?

Regards from John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 14:41 GMT
Dear Mr. Persson,

Respectfully sir, natural reality has nothing to do with unnaturally "doing" anything. Natural reality is uniquely benevolent. Physics is uniquely destructive, it has to be for it is physically impossible for any identical states to ever come into existence.

Regrets from Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Mar. 14, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT
To Alan Lowey

Thank you for comments and for liking my questioning attitude. Unfortunately your interest is in non-ether theories and my in ether based theories. I have not found any non-ether theory worth remembering and therefore I have no interesting reference to give you. Many members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance have written about particles, waves foam flowing towards matter. Like Reginald Cahill and Duncan Shaw. You can find them at www.worldnpa.org/site and search on their names.

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Apr. 19, 2014 @ 17:40 GMT
JP

I also am focused on a Theory of Everything.

The development of my model to date is found in STOE correspondence to general relativity and quantum mechanics.

The STOE paper has links to other papers that discuss many other topics.

The paper photon diffration of light explains my version of interference.

Neither Newton nor Einstein liked “action-at-the-distance” and neither do I. This is why my model has action-by-contact. I cover this in my book and my entry (section 2) in this essay contest.

I reject the “Principle of Fine Tuning” and have a replacement - see my entry (section 2). This principle is replaced by a negative feedback loop principle that also calculated a theoretical universe temperature of 2.718 K very close to the CMB 2.725 K. No other model does this.

I started from the big and worked down. 3 of my 2006 predictions have been found in 2011.

Do you have plans to examine the big of cosmology?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 4, 2014 @ 18:31 GMT
To J C Hodge

I do not use the term THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

Yes, I also dislike the ACTION AT A DISTANCE

I am not enough informed in the concept COSMOLOGY

JOHN_ERIK

Bookmark and Share



Stephen Tuck wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 23:11 GMT
Aether and Special Relativity are not at odds with each other if understood properly. Einstein made some incorrect assumptions (like the speed-of-light being constant). The c-constant is an Energy Constant. During the Lorentz transformation of Time-Dilation the speed-of-light (the Time-Component or internal kinetic-energy) slows down. The c-constant itself depends upon the Parameters of Space...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 7, 2014 @ 23:02 GMT
Hi John-Erik,

I have taken a quick look at your essay but don't have time right now to read it in detail or give a more detailed critique.

Have you read the evaluation criteria? Quote "(Note: While this topic is broad, successful essays will not use this breadth as an excuse to shoehorn in the author's pet topic, but will rather keep as their central focus the theme of how humanity should steer the future.)" Your essay may be interesting but it appears to have no relevance at all to the essay question.

I expect you just wanted the opportunity to share your research but I think you could have at least tried to apply it to the question; how is humanity to steer the future? Regards, Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on May. 8, 2014 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Georgina

Thanks for interest. Sorry you could not read any details.

My article is not about a pet topic. It is focused on interpretations of empirical results in very broad manner. Interpretations are found to be in error regarding stellar aberration, Michelson-Morley results, behavior of atomic clocks, gravitation, light bending near our sun and gravitation. Without identifying these many errors we cannot decide what to do next. You would have seen this if you had studied the article in detail.

This means that my article has very high relevance for future actions. These many errors means that the page limit did not allow me to be specific about the future.

Best regards from John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 23:47 GMT
Hi John, I read it rather quickly and wanted you to be aware of that. I'm afraid there are just too many essays for me to study them all in detail.To be fair I am trying to read as many as I think I can, while retaining my sanity.

Thank you for explaining how your article is relevant to the question, it was not clear to me from what I read. Having identified the errors what do you propose next? How should humanity steer the future?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 23:49 GMT
Correction, Hi John-Erik : )

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 18:12 GMT
Hi John-Eric, I hope you're well. Good to see your essay here, but sad to see it at the bottom. I feel guilty as I've fairly scored others rating low which has raised them. I'll reject the balance as your essay is perfectly well written and I agree at least you core hypothesis of a background frame is logically essential for coherent understanding.

Unfortunately Georgina does have a point....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 08:29 GMT
Peter

Thank you for the message.

You said: "I was impressed by your text until the stellar aberration derivation." Yes, at that point you did not understand what i said.Stellar aberration is a very important point marking where the trouble in 'modern' physics started. You said that some dotted line was NOT necessary. It was very important but difficult to explain. I will try to describe it better. Maxwell's wave model for light, expressed in four equations, is a description of the ether (assumed by Maxwell). Scientists like Einstein used an ether description without an ether.

The abolishing of the ether was connected to the abolishing of Bradley's aberration model. Telescopes (like interferomers) detect wave front orientations independent of transverse ether wind and cannot reveal information about the transverse ether wind. Instead the function of the telescope is dependent on the telescope's state of motion. Stellar aberration reveals telescope motion, not ether motion as scientists like you believe. So problems started with stellar aberration and ether less space.

Yes, I have not got many points, as I expected, since most reviewers do not understand what I mean. A revolutionary theory MUST be in collision with not only mainstream but also with fqxi writers and NPA people.

Peter, do you have a link to your description of stellar aberration?

With best regards from

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 08:42 GMT
Peter Jackson

My contribution above was in error registered as ANONYMOUS.

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on May. 17, 2014 @ 12:58 GMT
John Eric,

It's a common response, and often correct, to assume someone hasn't understood what you've described when they disagree. I use a different approach, which always stands me in better stead; I always first assume it's ME who hasn't fully understood the comment, so I allow it past my front cerebral cortex to be analysed I often find I was correct. i.e. that my first response was...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 15:18 GMT
Peter

Thank you for the mail

An important sentence in my article is stating that stellar aberration is interpreted in error. My article provides very detailed arguments in that direction. You say that i am wrong without the least argumentation. This is a very bad discussion.

Your article in 2012 does no clear this discussion.

Do you have any comments on my statement that there are 3 directions of light?

Detecting the direction of a beam where vector sum of c and v is relevant.

Coherent detection in a telescope where vector sum of c and u is relevant.

Coherent detection in an interferometer where only c is relevant. These 3 directions of light are described in detail in my article.

Besides my article you can also see my reasoning in another article at:

Time out for...

With best regards from John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 17, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Peter

The link is

Time out for..

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 18:01 GMT
John-Eric,

I didn't 'say you were wrong'. I showed that infalling ether would not be required if the simpler and more falsifible JM Rotation is correct. The mechanism is substantially falsified, including in KRR as I referred above, and even 'invisibility optics', both of which show that the apparent position of a source is NOT coincident with the wavefront orientation due a to a local rotational of the optical axis.

That is the 'argumentation' I provided. It is the best evidence possibly because NO theory is entirely disprovable and few are close to entirely provable. Occam's Law then prevails. We KNOW fro grin lenses that this refractive effect curves light paths. It's not speculation, it's very simple and common, just poorly understood as all are looking elsewhere.

I too also look elsewhere. Few others seem able to look beyond their own beliefs, which is essential to avoid just promoting a pet theory and igni oring comparisons. I followed your link but there a was no link to a paper. I expect it was the one I've read before, but if not please give a link to a pdf. - i.e. on viXra.

You did not comment on why you think the derivation of space-time curvature I explained and linked you to doesn't work. I'm only trying to help find commonality and empirical consistency John Eric. No theory is complete, yours included. By claiming it is and closing your mind you consign yourself to the bottom. That would be a shame as I agree all your basic tenets, which starts you off in a select group.

Did you not understand the rotation? If so just ask. If you simply don't agree it gives a more complete description of aberration then please explain precisely why.

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on May. 20, 2014 @ 15:25 GMT
Dear John-Eric.

Physics is now in a "crisis of representation and interpretation " (T.Romanovskaya), deep methodological crisis that was well said Carlo Rovelli in article SCIENCE IS NOT ABOUT CERTAINTY: A PHILOSOPHY OF PHYSICS :«This is a standard idea of how science works, which implies that science is about empirical content, the true interesting relevant content of science is its...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 20, 2014 @ 18:50 GMT
Vladimir

Yes, something is missing. The ether is missing.

But important errors exist in interpretations of experiments like stellar aberration, MMX, the illusion of time dilation (caused by clock dilation) and Pioneer Anomaly.

Statements like SO MANY PHYSICISTS CANNOT BE WRONG proves science to be ruled by political ideas of majority. Think about Copernicus against ALL priests in the church for hundreds of years.

Full picture? I do nor regard my theory as complete and i think there is NO theory of everything. But most important is not that but instead the fact that i regard MANY interpretations of experiments to be in ERROR. Too little discussions have been done on this point.

From John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 10:56 GMT
Dear John-Eric,

The set of interpretations says that process of knowledge of Reality didn't reach a basis. In it deep sense of "interpretation and representation crisis" of fundamental Knowledge(T.Romanovskaya). The deeper meaning of "Theory of everything" for me - is the foundation, carcass and framework of Knowledge. The problem of fundamental Science (Physics and Mathematics) is a search of "the general frame structure" (David Gross) which will establish the basis, the framework and the limit of Knowledge. You just give the ideas and option of such structure of Reality. This most important. For this purpose also the Contests FQXi are intended. The fundamental Science demands today new radical ideas. Science on a threshold of a new paradigm of the Universum which will be uniform for physicists and lyric poets. Only in this case the Mankind will be able to drive more reliably Future.

John-Eric, send me, please, the link to your site to get acquainted more deeply with your researches.

Yours faithfully,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 17:46 GMT
Vladimir

The link is already on this blog. See my contribution from May. 17, 2014 at 15.25 GMT. Click on the last link since I made an error on the first one. Click on

Time out for...

With the best regards from John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Judy Nabb wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 06:42 GMT
John Eric

Your essay started encouragingly but I can only agree with some of the above that it reverted to what seems to be your pet topic, with little scientific basis or relevance.

I had a look at timing evidence for signals at various observatories across the planet. Aberration is a 'flat' translation not a notional 'tilt' of apparent wavefront. In that case a telescope at rest in a medium (he atmosphere) will not have the effect you claim. The atmosphere itself has already produced it (effectively a 'lens medium extension').

I can also find no possible vision of what happens at the centre of the Earth where all this infalling ether must have accumulated for billions of years. It's a shame as I have no problem at all with ether per se, and agree that falling raindrops and umbrellas are not the solution to aberration.

That may not have been too bad if you're here to explain and discuss your hypotheses with an open mind, always a valid aim, but I notice apparently you're not. I don't find that a useful approach to science. I'm afraid I can't mark your essay high overall.

Judy

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 13:38 GMT
Judy

I am not advocating a pet theory and I have never said that I have a complete theory. Instead i have given logical arguments indicating errors in the interpretations of stellar aberration, MMX, light bending near our sun, atomic clocks and Pioneer anomaly. You should read my article more carefully.

You are wrong about stellar aberration, like many others. Aberration is produced by a CHANGE in the speed of the telescope independent of the ether wind. I have given arguments in my article. You have not been giving arguments. Stellar aberration is NOT an effect of atmosphere.

Your reasoning about the center of our planet proves that you do not understand what i have said. Ether particles move in ALL directions and DO not accumulate in the center of our planet. Bradley's interpretation of the effect of a moving observer is independent of if the phenomenon in question is a wave or a particle.

I find that you have not understood my article at all.

Best regards from John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT
Judy

I have read your article about eugenics. Your article is about very difficult and important questions. I found your article very interesting. However, I have not much knowledge in this field. Thank you for the article.

Best regards from John-erik

Bookmark and Share



Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 23, 2014 @ 19:56 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,

Your essay is highly scientific using purely the ideal of Physics. But I wondered why you are not so visible? Although I notice that good as it may be, your essay could link up with humanity steering the future. Other essays are in this category but are quite more visible. Please be more proactive in the next couple of days for your good physics theories to count well. I have rated you high to increase your visibility.

I will invite you to read my essay on STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM using this direct link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

I used the law of conservation of energy and wave motion as you did. See whether I was able to reason well in agreement to humanity steering the future. I will anticipate your rating as well as your comments.

Wishing you the best.

Gbenga

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 19:59 GMT
DISREGARD THE TYPO-ERROR

It read like this.

But I wondered why you are not so visible? Although I notice that good as it may be, your essay could NOT link up with humanity steering the future.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on May. 24, 2014 @ 17:43 GMT
Gbenga

I have now read your article for this year. I regard your article as the best article of those I have read so far. Congratulations.

Best regards from

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Margriet Anne O'Regan wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 04:56 GMT
Hello John-Erik

And yet another essay from 'outside the box' !!!! Bravo. I enjoyed it very much.

I wonder if you know about 'The Electric Universe' people who have also developed some rather 'airtight' alternative science' to the mainstream...??

Thank you,

Margaret Anne O'Regan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 29, 2014 @ 15:54 GMT
Margaret

Thank you for the mail and for good words about my article.

I have also read your article and I liked it very much. I think a realistic approach is to more and more minimize our consumption of not vegetarian food. If we want to reduce pollution we must reduce our consumption of energy as well. But even that is not enough. We must think about controlling the number of people on this planet and that is not easy.

Have you heard about tribes on the American east coast that had a not symmetrical balance between sexes in an interesting way? Only woman could vote and only men could be elected.

Yes, I no about the'The Electric Universe*. I am a member of NPA (Natural Philosophy Alliance) and this idea is presented in that forum. There are many theories presented there. Most members have a theory of their own. This is the reason that I try to focus more on disproving interpretations of empirical results rather than focusing on one theory.

With best regards from

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.