about the author


See also my articles about libertarian theory.

The best actual presentations of the current state of research of my theories

Quantum gravity

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,
, 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.

General Lorentz ether theory:
The condensed matter interpretation for gravity

The GR limit of the General Lorentz Ether:
An ether interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR

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

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:

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.

In German

In Russian