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

Peter Jackson: on 3/14/18 at 9:54am UTC, wrote John-Erik Thanks for your post on mine with link to your last blog. I...

Vladimir Fedorov: on 2/26/18 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote Dear John, Here we are again all together. I like your description to....

George Kirakosyan: on 2/26/18 at 4:58am UTC, wrote My dear Erik It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical...

John-Erik Persson: on 2/25/18 at 20:14pm UTC, wrote Don Limuti Thanks again. Yes, if that bookbinder had known mathematics we...

Don Limuti: on 2/25/18 at 20:00pm UTC, wrote Hi John-Erik, Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again. I...

John-Erik Persson: on 2/25/18 at 18:07pm UTC, wrote George Kirakosyan Thank you for these remarks. I agree to most of it. Yes,...

George Kirakosyan: on 2/24/18 at 7:34am UTC, wrote Dear Erik You says: //.. theoretical physics of today depends on more than...

Kamal Rajpal: on 2/21/18 at 14:11pm UTC, wrote Dear John-Erik Persson, I have read your Essay and your brief note on...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "lol REVOLUTION SPHERISATION everywhere at all scales,REVOLUTION..." in Alternative Models of...

Georgina Woodward: "The kind of time required, over which the material change is happening, (to..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


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 23, 2019

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: Fundamental Errors in Physics by John-Erik Persson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:01 GMT
Essay Abstract

This article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. It is demonstrated that the global positioning system (GPS), its atomic clocks and advanced measurement systems in the space program can give us the means to reconsider old ideas. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors. An ether that is falling towards our planet is suggested, and it is demonstrated, that this ether model can explain more observations than existing physics. Gravitational anomalies, gravitation itself and pioneer anomaly are explained by this theory. An explanation to destructive superposition in light is also given.

Author Bio

The author is 82 years old has an master in electrical engineering. He has been interested in the fundamentals of the theory of relativity and quantum physics since retirement. He has earlier sent articles to GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS, CNPS and GSJournal.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



John C Hodge wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 15:54 GMT
Perhaps your "falling ether" model can be expanded. Pioneer anomaly: (1) signal should be Earth directed as early data (but last analysed) suggested. (2) Sun's falling ether should have some influence on the frequencies so Sun's position could give the annual periodicity observation. You related falling ether to Doppler shift. Try applying to galaxy redshift. Currently accepted model has only 0.80 corrrelation (poor).

What gravity anomalies during solar eclipse?

Hodge

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 20:27 GMT
John Hodge

The effect of ether wind is directed towards the Sun, but observed from Earth. However, the difference is small, since distances are between 20 and 80 astronomical units (Sun Earth distance).

I do not connect between Doppler and ether wind. I say that the effect is caused by second order effect due to ether wind f(-(v/c)^2), but has been assumed to be caused by first order effect due to 2-way Doppler f(-(2u/c)).

I do not think that we can see galactic red shift in the Pioneer anomaly, but I think the effect exists.

Eclipse anomalies are observed in vertical direction in China. See Ref (3). They are also observed in horizontal direction by Janos Rohan. See Ref (4).

With best regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 08:37 GMT
Hi John, I have taken a quick look at your essay. There is a great deal of information in it and I must confess too much for me to take in all at once. I do appreciate the time you have spent considering these ideas and presenting your own solutions. I haven't studied Faraday's physics ideas but you have inspired me to look into that. I like the very ending where you mention restructuring of physics rather than mere addition to it. I think you are spot on there. Kind regards Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 2, 2018 @ 23:55 GMT
Georgina

Thank you for taking interest.

Yes, i think we should honor Faraday more. He made the great work in physics that Maxwell translated to mathematics. I think that the same can be said about Tycho Brahe's life long work in physics, that Keppler draw mathematical conclusions from. Mathematics seems to be over estimated in relation to physics. Without Faraday and Tycho Brahe we would have to wait long to see someone to do their lobs.

From _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Georgina Woodward replied on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 04:01 GMT
John-Erik, I am sorry for getting your name wrong.Thanks for your reply. Georgina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Georgina, thanks

John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 18:29 GMT
Dear John-Erik



I read your paper and I find that in many ways you have a better understanding of structural concepts than many who are committed to trying to fill the holes in existing quantum mechanics and relativity theories. You are correct that what is usually called ether exists and it is composed of particles that do not possess the angular motion that generates the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 11, 2018 @ 12:09 GMT
Paul Butler

I thank you very much for good words about my essay. Yes, i agree that the ether is a very important and fundamental concept together with space and time (not spacetime).

I will take look at your article. It appears to regard uncertainties in language. It seems interesting.

Thanks, and good luck _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 01:38 GMT
Dear John-Erik,

I saw your comments to me both on your page and also on my page and that they were a little different from each other. I will just make a single comment that covers both of them.

My current paper starts out covering the meaning of the word fundamental because that is what the contest topic is about and I do start out mentioning the vagueness of man’s abstract...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 13:29 GMT
Paul Butler

Thanks for making it more clear. I agree to your opinions regarding the relation between physics and mathematics. Mathematics is not fundamental to physics itself, but to our understanding and knowledge of it. It is good that you try to define what fundamental means. Thanks.

Best regards from _____________________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 21:23 GMT
Dear John-Erik,

I am not sure that you do understand my concept of the proper functional structure of science in general and in this case specifically in physics. There are two very important structures that are both required to maximize progression of advancement and at the same time enrich the level of understanding to a great enough depth that the likelihood of following erroneous paths...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson!

I really appreciate those who are passionate about ideas of ether and keeps her loyalty throughout his life. However, I always tell them that the idea of the ether is weaker than the idea of Descartes on the identity of space and matter. When Descartes maintains that space is a matter, the ether is no longer needed. When you are in your studies, replace the ether the concept of physical space, which is matter, then there is a lot of enlightenment in the understanding of the physical world, which overtook the once me. I also like you believe that space (the ether) drops and this creates the gravitational force.

Brief description New Cartesian physics you can find in my essay.

I wish you success!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 22:20 GMT
Boris

Thanks for taking interest and giving comments.

The ether must transmit light and gravity, and gravity demands matter. That matter is the ether. If there is matter there is an ether, in my opinion.

I will read your essay and comment.

Regards from ___________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share


Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 07:26 GMT
John-Erik,

Let it be so. I say space, you say ether. I say: space is matter, and you say: where there is matter there ether. But what is the ether? This concept of mythology. When a believer in God, I ask: where is your God?, he says - in the sky. For them the sky is the ether where the angels dwell. For me, the sky is the space, which is matter and which is the building material from which constructed the physical world.

In my essay there is no mechanism for gravity. I believe he is already well described, including you, so I appreciate your work.

I wish you success!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 03:48 GMT
Dear John-Erik Persson,

I enjoyed your essay and agree that theoretical physics today depends on more than 100-year-old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, some of which are in error. Like you, I feel that perhaps the easiest way to advance physics is to reveal old fundamental errors.

You discuss too many physical phenomena for me to critique, so I will focus on those...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 12:02 GMT
Edwin Klingman

Thank you for this interesting comments. We are in good agreements regarding the ideas that you take up, although we sometimes express the ideas with slight variations. we also agree to the fact that Maxwell got credit for Faraday's work.

You concentrate on all ideas that we agree on, and I hope that you will come back with some ideas where we differ. It is most productive to argue where there is no agreement.

I will with interest read your article and write a comment on your page.

Best regards from ______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Declan Andrew Traill wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Dear John-Erik,

I found your essay interesting and aligned with my work to some extent.

I think you would be interested to read my 2012 FQXi essay titled "A Classical Reconstruction of Relativity" where I explain how the effects of Relativity can be explained Classically and the null result of the MMX can be explained with an ether type field. There are also some of my papers on ViXra (just search for my page under author Declan Traill to find my papers).

In my work I found that the ether field (space-time) is consumed by Black Holes, resulting in a similar type of in-falling ether wind which can explain the Galaxy Rotation rates. The field around other masses (other than Black Holes) however, remains static & it is a time dilation field that affects all waves (light, matter) by refraction essentially - causing the gravitational attraction.

One other point I would like to make: when light destructively interferes, the energy doesn't disappear, it emerges somewhere else. For example in the two-slit Young's experiment, the light from the dark regions is shifted to the bright regions such that the total energy on the screen is the same. It doesn't cancel out to result in zero energy.

Best Regards,

Declan Traill

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 12:30 GMT
Declan

I have seen your FQXi 2012 paper. In your diagram v/c is near 1. Michelson assumed 10-4. If Sun is entraining, Earth should also. Therefore, v/c is only 10-6. In the light clock mirrors force c, and not c+v, to be ortogonal to mirrors. Therefore, transverse ether wind (blowing inside the wave fronts) does not change the speed of the clock. Einstein's light clock does not react in any way to transvers ether wind. No effect in transverse arm in MMX either.

Transverse ether wind cannot alter the wave fronts in stellar aberration.

In longitudinal arm in MMX information moves 2-ways between mirrors. In a crystal information about position is moved by the ether 2-ways between atoms. So, 2-way speed of light is changed in the same way as the contraction of bodies. Therefore, the effect in the longitudinal arm is real but compensated contraction of bodies. This effect is 2 times the Fitzgerald contraction.

Stellar aberration as well as MMX are useless in relation to the ether wind. We must instead measure 1-way light speed as we have done for decades in GPS. We find a spherically symmetric ether wind, also explaining gravity.

Regards from ____________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Richard J Benish wrote on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 04:25 GMT
What happens to the falling ether when it enters a hole through the source mass from both ends? Does the wind from opposite directions cancel? If so, then how would this affect the rate of a clock at the center?

Bear in mind that, according to general relativity, the rate of a clock at the center is supposed to be a minimum.

If the wind from opposing directions cancels, does this make the rate of a central clock a maximum? If so, then how would this relate to the falling of material objects into the same hole?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 15, 2018 @ 13:04 GMT
Richard

Perhaps you have been mislead by the word falling, and perhaps you should read my article again. It is important to consider that fast and small ether particles are moving in ALL directions spherically symmetric. Near a large body the flow passing the body is SLIGHTLY attenuated. This SMALL difference IS gravity. This is Fatio's 300 years old model.

Clock slowing is caused by bound electrons moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind. They are accelerating and decelerating during each orbiting period. This produces a second order effect.

I suggest something very different from GRT and therefore does not have to bear in mind predictions by that absurd theory.

I have demonstrated that my theory gives the same predictions as SRT plus GRT, however based on VERY different assumptions.

Regards from _________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Richard J Benish wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 02:15 GMT
Which way is the ether wind blowing at the center? If there is no net direction, then why should the rate of a clock there be slow?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 16, 2018 @ 14:10 GMT
Richard

Spherical symmetry mean no ether wind in the center. This means no clock slowing.

Vertical ether wind equal to the speed of a satellite in circular orbit predicts exactly the same clock effects as SRT plus GRT. Pioneer anomaly is also predicted, and caused by 2-way light speed and not by 2-way Doppler.

Stokes in error reduced Michelson's prediction. Lorentz in error substituted what was missing by time dilation. So, not only GRT, SRT, LET are wrong, but also Stokes effect in the transverse arm in MMX.

Best regards from ___________________ John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 20:19 GMT
Decan Traill

Regarding your 'explanation' to destructive superposition:

How do you explain that energy can disappear in one point and then pop up somewhere else?????

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 22:58 GMT
John-Erik,

I can't seem to find my post of 26th. That's no the fist to have disappeared, Cristi reported one. Bizzarre!?

To answer your question above; the energy doesn't 'disappear'. The amplitude reduces at one angle matched by increase at the orthogonal angle. Best visualise it as measuring a thin ellipse in orthogonal directions. Simply rotate or phase shift it and the major & minor axis reverse.

I hope that's helpful. Wiki is also quite helpful on quantum optics & phase shifts.

Perhaps my previous post was rotated 90 degrees so became as thin as a piece of paper and is no longer detectable!!??

Best. Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Peter Jackson

Thanks for answer. However, to me the explanation you provided seems to be inconsistent in relation to destructive superposition. The same can be said regarding your attempt to explain how your comment disappeared.

With best regards from ___________________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 30, 2018 @ 17:32 GMT
John Eric.

That's QM for you! However logical consistency depends on starting assumptions, so try this (as my reply to you on mine but expanded)

I show you a spinning sphere. I ask you to touch it and judge the clockwise or anti-clockwise rotation. You touch the south pole and clearly say 'Clockwise'.

Now I can make your result disappear to ZERO without removing the spinning sphere!

I simply rotate the sphere half a turn on either the y OR z axis. You find 0!

Now stay there and start again. I ask you if it's spin UP or DOWN. Easy! But then rotate 90 degrees and THAT ALSO goes to zero! (there's no up/down or left/right momentum at the equator) We can rotate either the sphere or just YOU! (and at 180 degrees you find the opposite).

The energy does not disappear! The spinning sphere is still there. It's all about at what angle we measure things. It's then entirely logically consistent once you use the correct starting assumptions. Exactly like QM in fact! Remember a two channel photomultiplier has orthogonal channels each with rotatable field electrons 'requantizing' input & amplifying to get a 'click'.

In 'superposition', if one path had one polarization and the other was at 90 degrees a 'complete' result is found if 'in phase'. A full range of detector findings is then possible subject to phase and orientation. i.e. if 2 identical states are combined at one angle the result is twice the amplitude, but at 90 degrees it will be found below the detection threshold.

It's all about understanding how detectors really work!

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:02 GMT
Hi John-Erik Persson

The opening sentences in your esteemed essay “This article demonstrates, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. With the very advanced technology of today we have tools to correct these mistakes. ........ This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 17:25 GMT
Satyavarapu

Thanks for good words about my article. You seems to have many ideas in common with me. I think that there is too much science fiction in physics now.

Yes, I will read your article and comment.

From ___________________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 28, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 14:28 GMT
Peter Jackson

Thanks for mail.

I agree with Feynman that wave or particle in confusion is just an evidence that we do not understand light. The fact that fringes changes over the surface means that they should change in transverse direction as well. I think that your simple test is not a certain evidence.

Regards _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Jan. 31, 2018 @ 22:52 GMT
John-Eric,

It does. It depends on polarization type and direction. Just turn the slits by 90 degrees and the fringes are transverse.

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 12:17 GMT
Peter Jackson

Of course the pattern changes when you rotate the equipment, but that does not prove how it changes when you move the detector. You cannot prove light to exist in light. You know that there is transverse fields, but you cannot know if there is a longitudinal field.

Regards John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
John-Eric, (copied)

I'm not sure what 'proof' ever is, but rotation has three degrees of freedom not just two. Ellipticity change can be from rotation on any axis.

Don't you agree the changes found when changing the backboard distance seem evidence enough of longitudinal change? (If plotted progressively it describes the same fluctuation pattern).

The 'impact' axis energy in beams such as Bessel beams & lasers is quite well known. And what of the photoelectric effect?

Best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 1, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT
Peter Jackson

3 dimensions. Longitudinal and one transverse must change. This does not prove energy to move inside the wave fronts. We do not know energy to even exist in light. The 2 transverse fields can represent information (potential forces) that later become real forces, when light hits the charge we use as detector. At that moment energy comes from the ether.

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 13:00 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 2, 2018 @ 18:52 GMT
Peter Jackson

You said: Energy is found when interaction is done with light. However, this does not prove that the energy is provided by the light. It can also be provided by the ether. Light can be without energy.

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:34 GMT
(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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 16:28 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:07 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 10:57 GMT
Jonathan Dickau

It is good to hear that you can agree to so much, since your article is very far from mine. Yes, I agree that I sometimes use too strong words, but English is not my mother language. Yes, different models can give the same predictions.

I also agree to your statement that more cooperation would be good not only regarding quantum physics, but in physics in general.

I have not read "Evolution in physics" but I think I will. We should use more process thinking in physics, and I have heard about Cahill's model , but do not know the details. My models is not really an in-falling ether but rather a small reduction in the out flow.

I will take a second look at your article and see if I can give comments, but this will be difficult since I have no experience from Mandelbot diagrams.

Thanks for comments and good luck from __________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share


Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 19:15 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steven Andresen wrote on Feb. 9, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 05:22 GMT
Hi John

Your model for light is unique and interesting, and your ability to articulate theory is clear and ledgeable. You have a keen eye for unjustified inferences in science, which is an awareness I wish were more common. For example " light detected as quanta, can be due to the system detecting it, electrons". You give good reasoning's based on observation, "Deconstruction superposition of light, 1+1 doesnt always equal 2". So how can 2 photons exist in a space and be detected as zero? You solve this by assigning a photons prospective energy transfer value to a potential of ether. I understand why this represents an elegant solution.

I also strongly relate to your falling ether wind hypothesis.

My theory operates on the premise that atomic forces derive their capacity for force, from the ether field of space. It triggers a one way inflow of ether because the ether is converted to force and extinguished in the process.

My hypothesis relates a connection between atomic forces and space ether. Your hypothesis also relates an energy potential with space ether.

These similarities make aspects of your work easy to comprehend. If you choose to read my essay then I hope this convenience extends both ways.

You have quality reasonings and a quality essay. I rated you top marks

Best regards

Steven Andresen

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steven Andresen replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 02:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 11, 2018 @ 11:49 GMT
Steven Andresen

Thank you for good support for my ideas. I think we can both agree to the fact we need to regard ETHER and TIME as important fundamental concepts.

In my opinion we need ABSOLUTE time and no GAMMA factor. Are you prepared to abolish dilation of time?

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 10, 2018 @ 11:58 GMT
Jonathan Dickau

I thank you very much for interesting links. I will read your paper and write on your page.

John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 12, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
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_T
hat_Is_Sp_1.pdf

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

Thanks for your most thought provoking essay.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 13, 2018 @ 16:41 GMT
Don Limuti

Thank you very much for very strong support for my ideas. Yes, I think it is very important with critical thinking regarding present accepted ideas. If we only look forwards we end up with science fiction instead of reality. There is lots of science fiction in physics today.

I will therefor take a look at your page and give comments.

With the best regards from _____________ John-Erik Persson.

Bookmark and Share


Don Limuti replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 19:04 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 15, 2018 @ 22:28 GMT
Don Limuti

Thanks for clearing up.

Yes, gravity can be explained by gravitons. Fatio did that 300 years ago. According to Newton's law, all bodies are in some sense connected. The ether exists, and has the property of propagating light and gravity.

Regards from _______________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Kamal L Rajpal wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 14:11 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 24, 2018 @ 07:34 GMT
Dear Erik

You says: //.. theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error. This article illustrates the need for more critical thinking to reveal old fundamental errors.//

In my view, in this lines contains the main cause of nowadays trouble and deep crisis of theoretical physics and I have tried say almost the same in my critical work. The fortune of critics however not so sweet and not so many people who want to hearing them. Your suggestions on possibility to using nowadays tech opportunities is very right and logic-natural. There however are other question - is this will favorable for the present rulers of modern science or not? We can imagine what huge changes can be follow if they will allow such kinds of global revision in the physics. So, I see the present science as one huge galleon that moves by inertia, which practically is impossible to stop and to change its course! So, I am very pessimistic that anybody will hearing you and me to over-viewed something. But we must try to do our duty hoping it can sometime to be listen. That is why I want to supporting you, (despite I am little bit doubtful to ether) I hope you will find time to check my work and to say some words, that will valuable to me.

So, I wish you successes in this contest!

Best regards

George Kirakosyan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 18:07 GMT
George Kirakosyan

Thank you for these remarks. I agree to most of it. Yes, we must go on although the resistance is strong. Therefore, I will read your essay and write on your page.

You said that you agreed to much, but not regarding the ether. If you do not want the ether I think you are doing wishful thinking. You believe in a young patent engineer, new in physics and abolishing the ether. You do not believe in a professor of physics, after lifelong studies stating the ether as necessary.

Regards from ________________ John-Erik Persson

Bookmark and Share



Don Limuti wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:00 GMT
Hi John-Erik,

Before this contest closes, I wanted to thank you again.

I never knew of Fatio, so I did a little investigation. He was a most fascinating character at an interesting cusp of history. He was one of those influential people (a connector) who formed a transnational club of the best and brightest in Europe. He somehow dropped through net of history.

I always appreciate a revelation.

Don Limuti

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author John-Erik Persson replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 20:14 GMT
Don Limuti

Thanks again.

Yes, if that bookbinder had known mathematics we perhaps had been talking about Farady's equations instead of Maxwell's.

From John-Erik

Bookmark and Share



George Kirakosyan wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 04:58 GMT
My dear Erik

It's nice to hearing you again, especially with the critical part of your works (and somewhat also of my). That is very remarkable that you honestly opposing to dominating majority, that is why I seen my duty to supporting you as much as it was possible. Thank you for your kindly words which really was valuable for me. And I am a little bit disappointed only that we have a certain difference on relation to ether. You mark that "I follow to patent engineer who had rejected the ether." I want just tell you here - sorry my dear it is not so, because the matter is more serious. By the way, Einstein actually does not remove the ether but he only declare this verbally. And the ether continued functioning in his theories .... just under new name! So, he has say one thing and actually doing an other thing. This fact noticed by other Jewish physicist Mario Rabinowitz - before of me. So, this matter is very interesting that has some history. If you wish then I can send you some references - after this battle of course. And now I can only wish you good healthy and wealthy, in your life!

My best wishes,

George

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Vladimir Nikolaevich Fedorov wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 14:21 GMT
Dear John,

Here we are again all together.

I like your description to. I agree with you, that theoretical physics of today depends on more than 100 years old assumptions and interpretations of experiments, that are made in error.

I hope that my modest achievements can be information for reflection for you.

Vladimir Fedorov

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2018 @ 09:54 GMT
John-Erik

Thanks for your post on mine with link to your last blog. I replied as below;;

..Thanks, I agree with much. But were you aware in the final great Michelson experiment, at Chicago with Gale & Pearson (MGP) he concluded; ETHER! Which worked in the way of the Stokes 'ether drag' model, which is now as Minkowski (1908) & Einstein's (1952) 'spaces (or 'discrete fields') in motion within spaces', as the DFM.

Ref the discussion in your blog post the following are directly relevant and pertinent. Do question them;

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163 Jackson. P. A., Minkowski. J. S. Resolution of Kantor and Babcock-Bergman Emission Theory Anomalies

VIDEO Time Dependent Redshift

Inertial Frame Error Discovery Derives Stellar Aberration and Paradox Free Special Relativity Via Huygens Principle

Best

Peter

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.