# Articles

## Quantum gravity

• 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I., The background as a quantum observable: Einstein's hole argument in a quasiclassical context, arXiv:0909.1408v1: Unpublished, but very valuable - the starting point of my whole scientific program, I show here that in quantum gravity a background spacetime is necessary.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.

## Ether theory

### 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,
DOI: 10.1007/s10701-008-9262-9

Some background (referee reports, my comments) of this publication.

### 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 distler@golem.ph.utexas.edu, Andrew.Connolly@ucsf.edu, paul.fendley@physics.ox.ac.uk, phg5@cornell.edu, dgottesman@perimeterinstitute.ca, dong@astro.cornell.edu, michael.lawler@binghamton.edu, mbmaple@ucsd.edu, bxn@math.ucdavis.edu, nicholas.read@yale.edu). 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.

## About the interpretation of quantum theory:

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.

## Bell's theorem

### 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:

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.