See also my articles about libertarian theory.
The best actual presentations of the current state of research of my theories
- About the ether interpretation of the Standard Model of particle physics:
- Schmelzer, I. (2009). A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge Fields, Found. Phys. vol. 39, 1, p. 73-107, arXiv:0908.0591
- Schmelzer, I. (2012). The Standard Model Fermions as Excitations of an Ether,, in Reimer, A. (ed.), Horizons in World Physics, Volume 278, Nova Science Publishers, arXiv:0912.3892;
- The beamer presentation I would use if I had to give a talk tomorrow;
- About the General Lorentz Ether (GLE) (an ether theory of gravity with GR limit):
- Schmelzer, I. (2012). A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242, arXiv:gr-qc/0205035
- Schmelzer, I. (2012). Black Holes or Frozen Stars? A Viable Theory of Gravity without Black Holes, in Bauer, A.J., Eiffel, D.G. (eds.), Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, Nova Science Publishers, arXiv:1003.1446
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). Are Boulware-Deser ghosts really the death penalty for massive gravity? arxiv:1711.09009
- About the quantization of gravity:
- About the ether interpretation for the Einstein equations of GR (the limit \(\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0\) of GLE):
- About Bell's theorem:
- Schmelzer, I., The background as a quantum observable: Einstein's hole argument in a quasiclassical context,
arXiv:0909.1408v1: Unpublished, but very valuable - the starting point of my whole scientific program, I show here that in quantum gravity a background spacetime is necessary. I show this by a thought experiment where the result depends on this background. It is a quantum version of Einstein's hole argument, with a superposition of two gravitational fields. Different from the classical case, superposition effects depend on the information which events on the two fields are the same. So, a covariant, background-free theory cannot compute the prediction for the thought experiment. (A first, more informal version has been rejected by Foundations of Physics.)
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). Quantum Gravity as a Metaphysical Problem, published in Phys Astron Int J 2017, 1(5): 00029. While the results of this paper rely on my earlier understanding that quantization of gravity is trivial in an ether theory of gravity (we know how to quantize condensed matter theories), here I argue that even without ether theory the quantization of gravity is not really a problem, but could be easily done using standard, well-understood methods of standard field theory (gauge fixing by adding a gauge-breaking term to the Lagrangian to obtain a non-degenerated field theory, then a lattice regularization to obtain a well-defined, finite theory). So, why such a trivial way to quantize gravity was not used? The problem is that quantization of gravity is not a physical, but a metaphysical problem, and what the mainstream requires is a theory which confirms with the metaphysical prejudices of the spacetime interpretation of GR.
The condensed matter interpretation for particle physics
The in my opinion most important paper is that about my ether (condensed matter) model for the standard model of particle physics:
Schmelzer, I. (2009). A Condensed Matter Interpretation of SM Fermions and Gauge Fields,
arXiv:0908.0591, published in
Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73 – 107,
Some background (referee reports, my comments) of this publication.
General Lorentz ether theory:
The condensed matter interpretation for gravity
- Schmelzer, I. (2012). A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit, arXiv:gr-qc/0205035, published in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1, p. 203-242, DOI: 10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7; This is the basic published paper for GLET. But I would like to note here that it was not published because I have not found a more on-topic paper to publish it. I was invited to publish it by Waldyr A. Rodrigues Jr., at that time chief redacteur of the journal. At that time, I have not tried to publish it - the theory itself was described in sufficient detail in an appendix of my Foundations of Physics paper about the cell lattice model, so I thought that more attempts to publish it are not worth the time. Moreover, I would like to add that despite being an invited publication, the peer review of this paper appeared to be more serious when what I have experienced elsewhere - I really had to modify a place which appeared to be really weak, something I have very seldom experienced before.
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). Are Boulware-Deser ghosts really the death penalty for massive gravity? arxiv:1711.09009. This paper discusses (and rejects) the most serious objection to GLE with \(\Upsilon>0\), namely that it contains a Boulware-Deser ghost. This "ghost" is a problem only for \(\Upsilon>0\), for \(\Upsilon<0\) the "ghost" would be standard massless dark matter, but \(\Upsilon>0\) gives interesting differences to GR, namely stable frozen stars instead of black holes, and a big bounce instead a big bang, so that I'm quite happy that I have been able to show that it does not endanger GLE with \(\Upsilon>0\).
- Schmelzer, I. (2012). Black Holes or Frozen Stars? A Viable Theory of Gravity without Black Holes, in: Bauer, A.J., Eiffel, D.G. (eds.), Black Holes: Evolution, Theory and Thermodynamics, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-61942-929-1, arXiv:1003.1446. Here I consider the empirical evidence about black holes and their relevance for GLE. One of the main differences between GLE and GR is that for \(\Upsilon>0\) there exist stable frozen stars with a radius slightly greater than the horizon. There have been claims by Narayan et. al. that this can be excluded by what we know from black hole candidates. I show here that such claims are unjustified.
The GR limit of the General Lorentz Ether:
An ether interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). Ether Interpretation for the Einstein Equations of General Relativity, in: Reimer, A. (ed.), Horizons in World Physics. Volume 294, Nova Science Publishers, ISBN: 978-1-53612-515-3. Here I give an introduction into the ether interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR, which is the limit of \(\Xi,\Upsilon\to 0\) of GLE. Nonetheless, it is worth to be considered independently. In this paper, I focus on the pedagogical point of view, following the line of argument of Bell's paper "how to teach special relativity".
What is worth to be mentioned here is that arxiv.org refused to publish it. Without any arguments about the content - simply "not appropriate for arxiv.org" - and this despite the point that it was published. I have objected, without any success, and one the highest level - with an email to all members of the arXiv Physics Advisory Board (at that time firstname.lastname@example.org, Andrew.Connolly@ucsf.edu, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org). None of them has even answered, feel free to ask them why. You can expect what I think about these guys now. It is one thing to think that something is inappropriate for publication, and another one to refuse to give an explanation why.
- An introduction into special and general relativity based on the Lorentz ether. A pedagogical text, following the basic idea of Bell's article "How to teach special relativty". So, the basic idea is that one does not have to prefer the Lorentz ether interpretation, to teach it is useful and helps the students to understand relativity.
- Schmelzer, I.: A solution for the Wallstrom problem of Nelsonian stochastics, arXiv:1101.5774v2: This paper solves the most serious problem of Nelsonian stochastics and other quantum interpretations based on flow variables (density \(\rho(q)=|\psi(q)|^2\) and velocity \(v(q)=\nabla S(q) = \Im \ln \psi(q)\)) instead of the wave function \(\psi(q)\). Wallstrom has objected that in quantum mechanics the integral over a closed path around the zeros of the wave function has to be
\[ \int v^i d q^i = \int \partial_i S(q) d q^i = 2\pi m, \]
where m has to be an integer, but, instead, for the equations in the flow variables m can be an arbitrary real value. So these interpretation do not derive this "quantization condition". In the paper I propose an additional postulate that \(\Delta\rho\) has to be positive and finite at points where \(\rho(q)=0.\) I prove that this gives the necessary quantization property and give also a justification for this postulate.
- Schmelzer, I. (2015) The paleoclassical interpretation of quantum theory, arXiv:1103.3506, published in Reimer, A. (ed.), Horizons in World Physics, Volume 284, Nova Science Publishers
The following papers are the result of some a more intense consideration of the argumentation around de Broglie-Bohm theory vs. other interpretations, so research much more mainstream than the ether research, even if what I defended here was de Broglie-Bohm theory, thus, not really the most popular interpretation among the mainstream. Nonetheless, the difference was remarkable: It was much easier to publish. If it would have been that easy to publish in ether theory, there would have been around twenty papers about the ether model for the SM instead of one.
- Schmelzer, I. (2009). Why the Hamilton operator alone is not enough,
arXiv:0901.3262, published in
Found. Phys. vol.39, p. 486 – 498 , DOI 10.1007/s10701-009-9299-4:
MWI depends on the assumption that decoherence defines uniquely a preferred basis. We prove, using some well-known facts from the theory of the Korteweg - de Vries equation, that there are physically different choices of the preferred basis, related to different decompositions of the universe into systems.
- Schmelzer, I. (2010). Overlaps in pilot wave field theories, arXiv:0904.0764v3, published in
Found Phys vol. 40: 289 – 300, DOI 10.1007/s10701-009-9394-6:
The equivalence proof between pilot wave theories and the corresponding quantum theories contains a weak point: One has to show that macroscopically different states do not overlap significantly in the pilot wave variables. It has been questioned that this holds for pilot wave theories with field ontology. We show that the overlap decreases almost exponentially with the number of particles, thus, becomes insignificant for macroscopic particle numbers.
- Schmelzer, I. (2011). Pure quantum interpretations are not viable, arXiv:0903.4657v3, published in
Found. Phys. vol. 41, 2, p. 159-177, DOI 10.1007/s10701-010-9484-5: Pure interpretations of quantum theory, which throw away the classical part of the Copenhagen interpretation without adding new structure to its quantum part, are not viable. This is a consequence of the non-uniqueness result for the canonical operators obtained in arXiv:0901.3262.
- Schmelzer, I.: A symmetry problem in the Copenhagen interpretation, arXiv:0909.0175v1. Unpublished, but I think the point of the paper is valid. Here I use the non-uniqueness problem to attack the Copenhagen interpretation. While it solves the non-uniqueness problem by their association of the canonical operators with experimental arrangements, this association is necessarily vague. This proves that the vague classical part of the Copenhagen interpretation contains physically important information. But in this case, this vague part is also important for the computation of the symmetry group of the theory. To derive an exact symmetry from a vague theory is impossible in principle, which defines a symmetry problem for the Copenhagen interpretation.
Actually I think that a redefinition of the Copenhagen interpretation, which makes the vague points precise, and in particular specifies that the classical part is described by a trajectory \(q(t)\in Q\), would solve this problem. Actually I'm working on my own interpretation of quantum theory, which uses some elements of Copenhagen, and this specification is one point there.
Schmelzer, I. (2017). EPR-Bell realism as a part of logic, arxiv:1712.04334.
Criticism of "refutations" of Bell's theorem
To reject "refutations" of Bell's theorem which somehow survive peer review and appear in mainstream journals is, of course, something one can leave to mainstream researchers who have to publish to survive. But the correctness of Bell's theorem is, even if accepted by the mainstream, a key point for my own argumentation too. So, I became engaged in discussions with various "alternative scientists" too, defending in this case the mainstream position.
And, once I was confronted with a publication in the "Annalen der Physik" - a journal where Einstein and a lot of other famous guys published their papers - I decided to publish a rejection, not because of its scientific relevance, but just for having a publication in this famous journal. And, once I have started this, I have wrote refutations for similar [self-censored] published in other good journals too. One already electronically paper was removed as a consequence. The other result have been a few publications:
- Schmelzer, I. (2011). Comments on a paper by B.Schulz about Bell's inequalities, Ann. Phys. (Berlin), 523, 576-579, arxiv:0910.4740.
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). About a "nonlocal" local model considered by L. Vervoort, and the necessity to distinguish locality from Einstein locality, Found. Phys. 47(1), 113-116, arXiv:1610.03057. This paper is nice because I succeeded to publish there, as a side issue, the convention to name "Einstein locality" simply "locality":
Moreover, a naming convention which forces us to name theories which are local in any physically important sense "non-local" is not only absurd, but can be even considered as Orwellian. To classify the actual convention as "Orwellian" is justified not only because it requires to name a local theory non-local. It also shares another important aspect with newspeak -- it leaves some incorrect thoughts without words to talk about then: Indeed, the word "local" is the natural word to describe the class of models considered in this paper, with some much higher speed of information transfer in a hidden preferred frame, and to distinguish it from theories with really pathological locality and causality violations. And this is, indeed, a class of theories which is the closest thing to anathema in modern physics.
- Schmelzer, I. (2017). About a "contextuality loophole" in Bell's theorem claimed to exist by Nieuwenhuizen, Found. Phys. 47(1), 117-119, DOI 10.1007/s10701-016-0047-2, also arxiv:1610.09642.
But then there appeared a rejection of one of my refutations:
T.M. Nieuwenhuizen, M. Kupczynski, The Contextuality Loophole is Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities: Reply to a Comment by I. Schmelzer, Found Phys (2017) 47:316–319.
It was not only repeating the same errors, but, even worse, I was not even consulted to comment that refutation of my own paper, and learned about it only after publication, and by accident. What's this? I thought that if somebody submits a refutation of some paper, every civilized journal would ask the one who is criticized for a comment too before publishing it. After this breach of scientific integrity by Foundations of Physics I decided to ignore this. If Foundations of Physics decides to destroy its reputation by publishing such papers in such a way, so be it. It is not my problem.