Just for example:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Gravitation_rotational_drag

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Cosmology_Do_we_still_need_experiments

The difficulty of physics is that observation, mathematical deduction, philosophical speculation cannot replace observation.

Physics is ultimately a physical science, and the goal is to describe and understand the physical world. Concerns about excessive abstraction are not new in physics and have been criticized and debated for decades.

I strongly emphasize that physics should be rooted in physical, intuitive concepts rather than highly abstract mathematics. I am therefore concerned with the shift from physical reality to abstract mathematics in fundamental physics, and I present my view that this shift is significant.

Relative time dilation is an example of this concern. It is a "real" or "natural" time that deviates from the concept of abstract time. I have a preprint research paper that addresses the time dilation problem and debunks it.

I strongly take the view that abstract concepts, such as virtual particles, interaction exchange theory, probability waves, curvature of spacetime, black holes, big bang, etc., are mistakenly accepted as physical reality. This concern is shared by a minority of physicists who argue for a more conservative approach to theoretical concepts, demanding a closer connection to empirical data and physical intuition.

The claim is highly plausible that physicists may be driven to adopt highly abstract and sensational models in order to gain public acceptance, leading to the introduction of absurd concepts into fundamental physics. It is true that concepts like black holes and the Big Bang have captured the public imagination and can influence the direction of research.

The tension between mathematical abstraction and physical intuition is a long-standing challenge in physics. Although mathematics is a powerful tool for modeling and understanding the physical world, it is essential for physicists to ensure that their mathematical models are based on experimental evidence and not divorced from reality.

The adoption of abstract concepts in physics often follows from their ability to explain and predict physical phenomena. Although caution is required, some abstract concepts have proven highly successful in doing so, such as the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics.

Public perception and recognition can influence the direction of research, but this is not unique to physics. Many scientific fields experience this phenomenon. The challenge is to balance communicating exciting ideas with maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

Open-mindedness is critical to collaboration and paradigm shifts within subfields. However, specialization is a natural consequence of the increasing complexity of physics, making collaboration and communication even more important.

The idea of an expert panel to evaluate research is attractive but may face challenges related to bias and the potential to slow down the publication process. It is important to ensure that such panels maintain objectivity and transparency.

The discussion raises valid concerns about the state of fundamental physics research. However, it is important to note that the scientific community constantly evaluates and evolves its theories and models. Physics remains a dynamic field, and ongoing dialogue and peer review are essential to its progress.

The basic problem of recent day theoretical physics is sticking to dogmas. The most important stumbling blocks preventing the development are length scale reductionism; physicalism/materialism leading to refusal to consider quantum physical correlates consciousness and cognition; the manifestly wrong view of the relationship between subjective time and geometric time; the dogma that there is only one possible arrow of time; the assumption that quantum coherence is possible only in short scales following from the assumption that Planck constant has only single value. Although the refusal to consider number theoretic approach to physics (of cognition) and the refusal to develop further the geometrization propgram of physics initiated by Einstein prevent progress. See https://tgdtheory.fi .

Soumendra Nath Thakur

I appreciate your viewpoint and fully support it.

However, regarding your observation, "The idea of an expert panel to evaluate research is attractive but may face challenges related to bias and the potential to slow down the publication process." I wish to clarify that my suggestion is for grading already published research papers.

"This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High-Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination. "

Secondly, regarding your observation on QM, "some abstract concepts have proven highly successful in doing so, such as the mathematical framework of quantum mechanics." I wish to add something.

Quantum Mechanical Phenomenon

Even though QM constitutes the main pillar of Modern Physics, foundational problems regarding the physical basis and weird outcomes of Quantum Phenomena are still being actively debated. De Broglie's hypothesis of matter waves implied that the dynamic characteristics of a micro particle in motion, can be ascribed to the wave characteristics of the wavelet accompanying the particle. The Schrödinger equation models the matter-wave interactions through wavefunction ψ and effectively serves as the foundation of QM. It is implied that the kinetic energy of the moving particle may be existing as field energy of the associated ψ wave field. We can generally say that any change in the motion of a particle will induce a corresponding change in the overall ψ wave field of that particle and vice versa.

However, the Schrödinger equation is founded on a conceptual mistake. The Coulomb potential energy of the proton electron pair in Hydrogen atom, which is inversely proportional to their instantaneous separation distance, has not been correctly modeled in the Schrödinger equation. The current solutions of Schrödinger’s equation for different energy states of electron in Hydrogen atom appear to describe only the time averaged charge density distributions around nucleus and not the trajectories of electrons. That is because the potential energy term V in the equation has been assumed as time invariant and not dependent on the instantaneous position coordinates of the electron. Since the position coordinates of the electron have been inadvertently omitted in the input to the equation, naturally the exact position of the electron is lost in the final solution. This has created all the weirdness in subsequent interpretations of QM. This was another wrong turn of fundamental physics which diverted our focus from physical reality to the mathematical formulations that are supposed to describe physical reality.

Article Wrong Potential Energy Term in Schrödinger’s Equation for Hy...

Intrinsic Electric Field

Consider one electron located at an isolated point P in space - far removed from all other charges. This isolated electron will produce an (intrinsic) electric field around point P that spreads everywhere in surrounding space. This intrinsic electric field or the electrostatic field of an electron is an integral part of the electron charge and does not depend upon the presence or absence of any other charge in its vicinity - not even any test charge. In Maxwell's terminology of 'deformations of aether' we might call it 'strain field' or 'strain wave field' around the electron and consider it as an integral part of the electron structure - whatever it be.

Coulomb Field

However, for practical applications we quantify this electric field of the electron by measuring its interaction with a positive test charge positioned at a certain point Q at distance r from point P. The force on second charge or test charge is caused by the mutual interaction between the electric fields of the two charges and is governed by Coulomb's Law of electrostatics. The intrinsic electric field of an electron when quantified with a test charge, using Coulomb's law, may now be termed as Coulomb electric field of the electron. This Coulomb field of the electron will map the force acting on test charge located at Q as well as map the interaction energy released due to the mutual interaction of the superposed intrinsic electric fields of the electron at P and test charge located at Q.

Ambiguity

Mapping of the forces and energies for different locations Q of the test charge through the Coulomb field has introduced a major ambiguity in the notion of Electric Field of the electron. Ambiguity is in the lack of distinction between the Intrinsic electric fields of isolated electron and isolated test charge and the Coulomb electric field of their interaction forces and energies. Moreover, this mapping of interaction forces and energies cannot represent a physical field since the forces and energies mapped at different field locations Q1, Q2, Q3 etc. do not physically exist when the test charge is physically located at Q. Unfortunately, in Modern Physics the Coulomb electric field is de-facto treated as the Intrinsic electric field of the electron.

As such the Schrödinger equation for Hydrogen atom, where potential energy of the electron is treated as time-independent, instead of treating it as a time-dependent function of instantaneous position coordinates of the electron, - is fundamentally wrong and misleading.

Soumendra Nath Thakur: "I strongly emphasize that physics should be rooted in physical, intuitive concepts rather than highly abstract mathematics."

Agreed! Unfortunately, intuitive concepts have little chance if not even recognized in view of not really well understood mainstream concepts.

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Local-effects-of-remote-masses Now: https://web.archive.org/web/20230120174916/https://www.researchgate.net/project/Local-effects-of-remote-masses

Dear Sir.

Yes, certainly.

What I mean to say that it is essential to recognize that scientific understanding of existence and the universe is a complex field that extends far beyond our current comprehension. While the Planck length is a crucial concept, defining the precise boundaries of the universe based solely on it remains a topic of ongoing research and debate. Additionally, accounting for phenomena like dark energy and black holes is crucial in our quest to comprehend the universe fully.

Physics has an observation blind spot, which is determined by its atonal method. That cannot be overcome by existing methods.

Space-time consists of two layers: chord (tonality) space-time and non-chord (atonality) space-time; The former is expressed by chords (quantum spectrum, strings) and is often used in music, painting, etc. The latter masks chords, is expressed by external reference frames (clocks, rulers, etc.), and is often used in classical physics, etc. Both involve figure-ground and motion, but the former is a physical reality and the latter is a relative concept.

It - change and acceptance of need for such - could and should start all with recognition that all constants of nature are deeply interrelated by some really simple first order multiplicative integer geometry as revealed by iSpace theory, able to derive exact values (zero error bar!) from geometry without resorting to any human artifacts whatsoever.

See papers and preprints on my RG home why constants - including Newtonian G and finestructure constant alpha are just that - constant. This leads to and shows there exists necesserily a physical medium with extremely high energy density - ether or whatever name one might give quantum vacuum - and not nonsensical negative energy density ad required for current mainstream models to even survive …

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christian-Wolf-20

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Christian G. Wolf: "This leads to and shows there exists necesserily a physical medium with extremely high energy density - ether or whatever name one might give quantum vacuum"

... reminds me of similar thoughts I had in view of Mach's Principle and related experiments:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

Dear Xiaohong Li,

Thank you for your valuable input on this topic. I truly appreciate your perspective on the challenges in physics. However, I would like to discuss a point in your statement where there seems to be a contradiction regarding the role of observation.

You mentioned, "The difficulty of physics is that observation, mathematical deduction, philosophical speculation cannot replace observation." It appears there might be a typographical error or misunderstanding, as you mentioned observation twice in the same sentence. If you meant to emphasize the importance of observation, then it might be more clear to state: "The difficulty of physics is that mathematical deduction and philosophical speculation cannot replace direct observation."

I hope this clarification aligns with your intended point. Once again, I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

Best regards,

Ciro

Dear Researchers,

I appreciate the thoughtful analysis provided on the current state of Fundamental Physics Research. Your detailed exploration of the challenges faced by the field is valuable for the scientific community.

It is evident from your discussion that Fundamental Physics has indeed encountered significant obstacles, particularly related to the adoption of abstract mathematical concepts as physical realities. The "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome, the analogy of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant," and the "Frog in the Well" Syndrome aptly describe the prevailing issues in the field.

I agree that a potential solution could involve the establishment of an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation. Such a panel, comprising experts from various specialized and multi-disciplinary fields, could play a crucial role in evaluating and grading research papers. This approach could help differentiate valuable contributions from the background noise, ensuring that only high-grade research papers receive widespread dissemination.

Additionally, fostering interdisciplinary collaborations and encouraging open dialogue among researchers might facilitate a more holistic understanding of the fundamental principles of physics. By promoting critical thinking, logical reasoning, and rigorous evaluation of theories, we can collectively work towards rectifying the challenges faced by Fundamental Physics Research.

Thank you for initiating this important conversation, and I look forward to hearing more perspectives from the learned researchers in this community.

Best regards,

Ciro

Expert in Scientific Metrology

Dear Ciro Alberto Sánchez

Thank you for your supplement and improvement.

Ciro Alberto Sánchez: "I agree that a potential solution could involve the establishment of an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation. Such a panel, comprising experts from various specialized and multi-disciplinary fields, ..."

In particular, experimental investigations should get a chance of being judged by engineering scientists in order to answer critical questions like in case of claimed discovery of gravitational waves and associated hypothetical sources, see W.W. Engelhardt's "Popular Answer" in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914#view=6527fb2bf2a069f4de09c994

I think there is no crisis if no resources are wasted. The crisis comes up when money and resources are put in wrong directions. I highly disagree a centralized panel to judge physics will do any good. I believe physics like any other fields needs decentralization and back to peer debate and discussion. It is the physicists who lost the belief that everyone is equal, worship heroes, big prizes and cause the problem of nobody challenging the established theories or lost the ability to challenge them at the right angle, which I agree with many that it has to be experimentally relevant not mathematically based.

Jixin Chen I‚d fully agree but to your last sentence: for any experiment to be carried out it needs funding first (most of the time) and funding will need some theoretical model or simulation which in turn will need math.

The trick here likely is not to use the (flawed) math and models mainstream is using as someone much more clever then me said „You cannot fix a problem with the same methods it was caused by in the first place“.

Christian G. Wolf I am not devalue theory and believe it is the highest achievement in human science. I just mean theory if not testable by experiments is useless and not belong to our age.

A centralized judge system in our history has created 2000 years of dark age in science. It should be avoided by our maximum efforts.

In my opinion, fundamental physics in the true sense of the term has never existed. In fact, we are still far from what is commonly called “fundamental physics”. Fundamental physics has never been completed until today. For me, the designation needs to be changed. I suggest the designation “Ultimate Fundamental Physics.” Basically, it is this new physics which, in my opinion, must lead to constants which do not come from the laboratory, that is to say completely theoretical constants. In my opinion, there is still a lot of work to be done. But the bases are actually Einstein's theories on both relativities and Planck units. In fact, we have to connect them by means that we have to invent! This is actually the hardest work.

The last outbreak of fundamental physics in the past 300 years started with adapting calculus contributed by Newton and Leibniz. However, it is not possible to solve complicated differential equations such as many-body problems. Thus, I think it is time for us to give up the idea that a physical problem can be solved analytically with absolute answers, and put most of our efforts into developing numerical solutions, which is the only engineering solution nowadays anyway.

Jamil Kooli Jamil, may I ask what from your point of view is not theoretical enough on exact iSpace constants derivation, which in iSpace-IQ unit system has no reference to human artifacts whatsoever - it’s pure integer geometry and all you have to „swallow“ for accepting the model behind the success values and exact interdependencies as shown are possibly just hexagonal (Pi3=3), square (Pi4=4) or even fractal (!) circles. But to see this, you really need to read my papers on iSpace instead of claiming „must lead to constants which do not come from the laboratory, that is to say completely theoretical constants“ - it’s done - they are!

Christian G. Wolf,

The current rule says that a theory must be verified by experiment. But for me this is valid until people find the means to have absolute values of physical constants! And believe me, it’s very possible! As for my articles and my questions on my RG pages, they fall under what I call "Ultimate Fundamental Physics". Why "Ultimate" because for me as long as "fundamental physics" has not become theoretical it is not yet ultimate. I mean that in "ultimate fundamental physics" the constants do not come from the laboratory and moreover they will serve as references for laboratory measurements and not the other way around. This is how “Ultimate Fundamental Physics” should work. Currently there are experiments which justify the "ultimate fundamental physics" these are the experiments on hydrogen and muonic deuterium. In fact I am trying to explain that the correct radius of the proton from electronic hydrogen is 0.8758 fm. And the two small radii obtained are used indirectly to calculate the neutron radius. So my conclusion is that muonic experiments on H-D are actually intended for indirect measurement of the neutron radius. However, people know that direct measurement of the neutron radius is extremely difficult if not impossible. People did not understand the results of these experiments to the point that they trivialized the results. To finally say that the small radii 0.8356 fm or 0.833 fm reflects the correct measurement of the proton of electronic hydrogen. But this conclusion has nonsense! An "ultimate fundamental physics" gives the link for the equations between all these proton measurements and brings current physics towards ultimate theoretical physics. For Paving the way for exotic atoms as a newcomer in physics.

Jamil Kooli Dear Jamil, dear all, before one starts to make complex measurements (of possibly exact theoretical predictions thereof) like your proposed proton radii or similar features one must be aware that constants of nature form a dependency chain hirarchy. Only very few constants are actually primary and iSpace theory shows which depend on which other - and exactly so.

Even if not looking on exact values derived thereof, this in its own is no small feat. iSpace has all electrical ones, electron mass, Newtonian G and with this all Planck constant in SI, as well as Boltzmann kB (which surprised me myself to be possible). Recently I found and showed exact quantum based reasoning for Hubble H0 and even why there is currrent deviation of CMB 68.6… from quantum based 71.99… (all exact!) and with this as another major breakthrough exact mp/me ratio (hence exact mp, including required quantum geometry to do so as a side effect of having exact integer geometric results).

But what iSpace has not yet achieved is the derivation and hence geometric reasoning of g-2, and the 3 Lepton mass generations, so Muon and Tau mass parameters are missing as well. Without having these extremely important secondary constants, it’s fully impossible to even think on in-vitro calculate mass series of periodic table with all stable and unstable variants.

But I’d say it’s a really great start, isn’t it as everybody else is not able to show anything like that - hence iSpace is so much more than a model for constants - it’s a tool to look into your own theories and models with arbitrary numeric precision and hence gaining excessive geometric insight from and about your own result equations! This is what I believe is what all of you completely overlook given the replies to read for me. We all need to start somewhere - and iSpace is the tool for further progress in physics!

Christian G. Wolf,

Currently, I haven't noticed any absolute constants in fundamental physics. Everything is approximate. For example, CODATA claims that the speed of light c= 299792.458 is an EXACT value. This is not true because if the speed of light were exact, it would appear as an irreducible ratio with an integer above and an integer below the ratio. But unfortunately, this is not the case at all. Or is there anyone who can comment on the confidence threshold of the accuracy of Bohr's formula for the hydrogen radius; well no. Everyone works with this because there is no other alternative. The same thing for the Rydberg constant. Everyone therefore follows the same impasse. But diversification is a major asset. One of these days people will find the ultimate truths. I think that's how things happen.

Jamil Kooli Dear Jamil - at this point I give up.

You are more willing to reiterate factually wrong believe on your side than honestly take the time to read and learn - before you talk. If you prefer from others, or iSpace or whatever but please learn simple facts like the state of the scientific art in a specialized field like constxhts of nature before continue to flat answering decade outdated ideas.

Regarding the question "What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?" let us consider a specific case of Electron Degeneracy Pressure. Notion of Electron Degeneracy Pressure in Astrophysics is fundamentally wrong and is a major factor that has led the Astrophysics astray into the realm of fictitious Black Holes.

Under high pressure, all pairs of atoms in an ensemble will experience relative linear compression, and pressure ionization. The group of all electrons, freed by the ionization process, will move under the combined electrostatic potential of all ions in the ensemble and may be considered as degenerate electrons. The ions, under extreme electrostatic repulsion, will get grid-locked in their mean positions and will not be able to move past each other.

However, Astrophysicists handle this situation quite differently. Under high density conditions, Astrophysicists invoke Electron Degeneracy Pressure to balance the pull of gravity in stellar environment.

Let me quote a few relevant statements from a Wikipedia page on Electron Degeneracy Pressure.

[ (a) In astrophysics and condensed matter, electron degeneracy pressure is a quantum mechanical effect critical to understanding the stability of white dwarf stars and metal solids.

(b) In metals and white dwarf stars, electrons can be modeled as a gas of non-interacting electrons confined to a finite volume.

(c) In white dwarf stars, the positive nuclei are completely ionized – disassociated from the electrons – and closely packed. At this density gravity exerts immense force pulling the nuclei together. This force is balanced by the electron degeneracy pressure keeping the star stable.

(d) Electrons are members of a family of particles known as fermions. Fermions, like the proton or the neutron, follow Pauli's principle and Fermi–Dirac statistics. In general, for an ensemble of non-interacting fermions, also known as a Fermi gas, each particle can be treated independently with a single-fermion energy given by the purely kinetic term.

(e) Fermi–Dirac statistics is a type of quantum statistics that applies to the physics of a system consisting of many non-interacting, identical particles that obey the Pauli exclusion principle.]

It is clear from the above statements that for invoking Electron Degeneracy Pressure, following steps are necessary.

1. Apply Fermi-Dirac Statistics to degenerate electrons, by treating them as non-interacting particles, to accelerate them to high kinetic energies through the action of Pauli's Exclusion Principle and Quantum Mechanics.

2. After thus accelerating the degenerate electrons, their kinetic energy density is declared as the Electron Degeneracy Pressure because their dimensions (ML-1T-2) are common.

3. Armed with this pressure, the degenerate electrons are then required to stop the gravitational infall of all protons and ions by exchanging their momentum with infalling ions through elastic collisions. However, to enable such momentum exchange through elastic collisions, all electrons, protons and ions will have to be assumed as non-interacting.

Hence, the implicit assumption of non-interacting electrons, protons and ions is most crucial for sustaining the notion of Electron Degeneracy Pressure. But we know that electrostatic repulsion between two protons is 1036 times stronger than the gravitational force between them.

Firstly, however, we can neither treat electrons to be non-interacting for applying Fermi-Dirac statistics, nor there is any physical mechanism available with Pauli's Exclusion Principle to physically accelerate these electrons.

Secondly, the kinetic energy density of electrons cannot automatically become degeneracy pressure without incorporating a physical mechanism to enable electrons to exchange their momentum with protons and ions through elastic collisions.

Thirdly, in such close contacts, electrons, protons and ions can never become non-interacting and hence can never be treated as non-interacting. Therefore, it is fundamentally absurd to state that "at high density, gravity exerts immense force pulling the positive nuclei inwards towards the center of a star, but this force is balanced by the electron degeneracy pressure to keep the star stable."

Therefore, the notion of Electron Degeneracy Pressure in Astrophysics is fundamentally wrong and invalid. But under the current system of training and research, Astrophysicists are totally incapable of discarding this wrong notion without accepting appropriate assistance from other associated disciplines. That is why the suggestion to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields, is quite relevant for any positive advancement in Fundamental Physics Research.

Article Black Holes are a Mathematical Fantasy, not a Physical Reality

Article Stellar Core Collapse Models are Erroneous and Misleading

Article Ionic Gravitation and Ionized Solid Iron Stellar Bodies

“…Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes…..”

- that is rather, if tooo, naïve suggestion…

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko : "- that is rather, if tooo, naïve suggestion…"

May I have your alternative / better suggestion please.

Thanks for outlining a problem. Yes, indeed the physics community seems stuck and in need of T. Kuhn type paradigm shift. He outlined what a paradigm shift must be (accurate, self-consistent, BROAD SCOPE, simple, fruitful). He also mentioned it would be incommensurable with current models. That is, it would require different constants and concepts of entities. Broad scope suggest it should reduce to General Relativity AND QM. That is, it should be a generalist, not a specialist, endeavor.

Therefore, the `expert' type committee is exactly what is NOT needed. Indeed, such a procedure is what the peer review process is - and it is failing to allow new models into the accepted literature.

So, I conclude fundamental physics is stuck because the `experts' are making it so.

I think that if a platform could be established that requires submissions that solve a broad range (size scale) of anomalous observations (where actual data exists) such as periodic redshift of galaxies, Pioneer Anomaly, and light interference pattern (Afshar experiment, Hodge experiment. I think RG makes a start. But the volume is overwhelming and most of the papers have too many flaws ( and open mind collects too much dirt). So, this site should have a format for papers and require observation data comparison (too many papers are merely hand waving ). This site would contribute by establishing the standards which would solve much of the outside-the-box problems that cause those experts ignore contributions. I expect actual contributions to this site would be few because most of the papers on RG would fail.

John Hodge : You wrote, " Therefore, the `expert' type committee is exactly what is NOT needed. Indeed, such a procedure is what the peer review process is - and it is failing to allow new models into the accepted literature.

So, I conclude fundamental physics is stuck because the `experts' are making it so."

I have two observations on your above quoted statements.

Firstly, you have mixed up the original suggestion for "an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields" with the current peer review process conducted by research publications through experts from the concerned field. Your objection is specifically against the peer review experts who do not allow new models into the accepted literature. Hence, in your view the peer review experts are hindering any progress in fundamental physics and not the real working experts in specialist fields. In fact, the reviewers appointed by research publications may not always be real experts in the field.

Secondly, the original suggestion was that " This International Experts Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High-Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination. In my opinion, all researchers who contribute research papers in any specialist field of Fundamental Physics, must be regarded as experts in that field. Surely their research must be evaluated by EXPERTS in relevant fields and not by laymen.

However, advanced research in multi-disciplinary fields must be evaluated by panel of experts in various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields.

Any concrete suggestions in this regard are welcome.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu

So, An `expert' for your purpose is NOT a peer reviewer for the currently accepted press? Would such an expert be expert in General Relativity?

The other part of the suggestion was to set identification standards, including how to identify truly new paradigms. I suggested the majority of papers on RG would fail the criteria I mentioned. Two examples: Most seem content to calculate some known by the current paradigm constant - that is the model is not a new paradigm. It's the data that must be matched with models. I have found that an abstract longer than say 1300 characters (not my number - older APS) demonstrates too vague thinking. So, if an author uses a long abstract, the author fails to understand the subject. When I see such long abstracts, I skip the article.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

“…Sergey Shevchenko :[SS quote] "- that is rather, if tooo, naïve suggestion…"[end quote]

May I have your alternative / better suggestion please.…..”

- yet in first 1900s, and, of course, well more recently, physics was/is developed onto the level when the physical theories really has became to study really fundamental problems in Matter, and so to elaborate scientifically the problems it was/is necessary to understand – what are the fundamental phenomena/notions “Matter”., “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, while all these phenomena/notions - and so, including really everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fields”, etc., in the mainstream physics are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational.

Correspondingly recent mainstream physical theories are based on already principally relating to the phenomena/notions above postulates

- and, at that, quite logically inevitably the postulates really prescribe to some fundamental – and so basic in theories - objects/events/effects/processes only some transcendent irrational/fantastic properties.

So really physics till now really isn’t changed in last 100 years, besides that really was well essentially developing experimentally; and was/is developing theoretically only by really ad hoc transcendent fitting the theories to experiments. So the theories are adequate to the reality in many non-fundamental, but useful technologically cases, and that resulted in very essential development of technologies, including in appearance, of high technological physical Big Instruments,

– but using of which, correspondingly, next and next experimental data are obtained, however again because of the transcendence above, that resulted/results only in more and more fantastic “theories” of “God particles”, numerous “holes in spacetime”, etc.;

- which really look as rather strange mental constructions even in mainstream essentially real physics, nonetheless corresponding “breakthroughs” are published in top physical journals as a few ones in a month; so, say, physics-2023 is practically the same as physics-1980, on 90% physics-1940, including contains the transcendences that were introduced in physics more 100 years ago..

Correspondingly in last few decades in mainstream physics already at least two physicists generations appeared, who really have known that to know LaTeX and produce fantastic stories for populace is much more useful than to know physics; and, at that yet now in mainstream physics some “Experts committees”, “Ethics committees”, etc., are innumerous, where the experts, etc., are that are here above; so what really this means see, say, an example in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force/comments.

Thus really a forming of a next “Experts Panel for Research Evaluation” nothing can change in this case. So for those scientists, who obtained really important physical results only one way is – submissions in existent journals, hoping that editors in some journal editors board are really professional physicists and ethical humans; though in my experience of soon 70 submissions the result is complete zero.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko

I agree with your general observations. But you have not given any better alternative.

You wrote, "So for those scientists, who obtained really important physical results only one way is – submissions in existent journals, hoping that editors in some journal editors board are really professional physicists and ethical humans; though in my experience of soon 70 submissions the result is complete zero."

Your suggestion is limited to getting the new research published in some journals. My observation was that "In spite of tens of thousands of advanced research papers being published every year, there is hardly any perceptible advancement in Fundamental Physics. One reason is that under the current system of research dissemination, it is virtually impossible for any researcher to know about the research contributions of all other researchers. Second reason is that when a researcher develops a model of certain aspect of Nature, due to long mental association and efforts put in, the model tends to get embedded in one's permanent Belief System. Accordingly, each researcher will tend to develop a personal Belief system which will act as a Benchmark for evaluating the models or contributions of all other researchers. In the absence of any centralized or common research dissemination and evaluation system, the individual Belief systems will constitute a "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome, which is a great hinderance for any advancement in Fundamental Physics Research."

"Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High-Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination."

You may kindly elaborate as to what is your specific objection to the above suggestion.

Regards

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

“…Sergey Shevchenko

I agree with your general observations. But you have not given any better alternative.…”

- I only in this case only repeat that in recent scientific community yours

“…In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High-Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination." …..”

- really is a naïve completely utopian proposal. Really, again, in the community there exist innumerous experts panels, committees, etc., which are, of course, formed from recent “famous”, “seminal”, “outstanding”, “brilliant”, which are in first dozens of members of “highest IQ humans” lists, where A. Einstein is #1, etc.,

- and which really have became “famous”, etc., composing really fantastic “fundamental breakthroughs” and all they are already members of, again, innumerous panels, committees, etc., above;

- and such panel will – as the, again, innumerous now, existent ones do – claim as a “pseudoscience” any really new and really fundamental physics, since in this physics it becomes to be clear what really their famous, etc., breakthroughs are. Nothing else really can happen

So only one case of new physics development looks as real - if the authors of the new really physics will be existent famous, etc., people, and by no means somebody other, despite that really new physics quite other scientists can develop. That is possible only if any information about real authors is blocked everywhere that is possible, however, at that, for more sure it is necessary to solve “alive real authors” problem also; and now for the real authors that they do in science is really dangerous for life, again see the RG link in SS post 4days ago now..

That is another thing, that real authors understand what they made in science much better than those “famous” ones, who, after solution of the problem above, will extremely widely publish their, in this case really, fundamental papers, etc.; which so, really will be essentially some fantasies also. That will slow to certain degree the physics development comparing with what would be if real authors make that, but non-critically,

- and really for sure eventually physics will be developed, as that is rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, now 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force as the step of “classical” macro scale physics → QM→ Planck scale physics. .

And relating to “dissemination” – now there exist numerous services that disseminate information about scientific publications, starting from Cross Ref, etc.; but that nothing changes in real situation in sciences, first of all in physics. Again – physics is now a humans’ activity branch, where to make fundamental experiments it is necessary to spend very essential money. So now, despite that is quite ineffective, really only the proposed by “famous”, etc., really senseless experiments are financed by financing, first of all by states, authorities; while circulating in this case big money enlarge the new physics development problems above. Money and ethics in too many cases are too different things, but for the financing authorities .it is necessary to ground for populace their money spending; and really wide disseminations aren’t, and will not be disseminations of really important scientific results of real – but “non-correct” – authors.

Cheers

Dear All,

Fundamental Physics Research is intended to explore the grand maze of the unknown. When we say, "Fundamental Physics is stuck in conceptual crisis and reached a dead end" it implies two alternative situations.

(1) One possibility is that Nature is inherently so weird and complex that in spite of the best efforts of best human brains, Humanity is finding itself incapable of exploring the grand maze of the unknown any further.

(2) Second possibility is that in applied sciences we rectify our mistakes through physical feedback but in fundamental physics we could not rectify our mistakes for want of physical feedback. Hence, due to our past mistakes, most branches of fundamental physics have been pushed on a wrong track which has reached a dead end now. What is now needed is a course correction through rectification of past mistakes and that is well within the capability of Human Brain.

Most researchers from the mainstream physics hold the first viewpoint that Nature is inherently so weird and complex, but we are trying our best. However, in my opinion we just need to identify our past mistakes, then their rectification and further progress should not be difficult. To illustrate this viewpoint let us consider the case of QM. We committed a mistake in the very foundation of QM by taking the potential energy term V as independent of time in Schrödinger’s equation whereas it should depend upon the position coordinates of the electron and thus time dependent. Course correction for this mistake is highlighted in my latest paper titled, "Dynamic Electron Orbits in Atomic Hydrogen".

Article Dynamic Electron Orbits in Atomic Hydrogen

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu: "position coordinates of the electron"

Isn't the bound electron rather a spread than a localized object?

One of the primary thought mistakes from iSpace theoretical point of view (able to derive constants of natures values and integer geometry in exact equations closed form) is the non-distinction between the theoretical (or measured) rest-mass of a particle (fernion) and its inertial mass by its inpulse (acceleration gained, and even leaving the extremely small mass gain by value yet also higy relevant additional question of ZPE „Zitterbewegung“ style inertial mass away) but all of such mass relations violates agreed „holy“ equivalence principle one way or another by not having all parts of the assumed sums of energy iSpace (LEGO style!) exact as required for strict - and hence necessarily quantized - energy conversation laws.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu ,

Yes the gradual shift you mention was after a sudden shift..

the sudden shift consisted in refuting the pathways which Maxwell, Lorentz, Hertz et al designed and accept a simplistic theory which was based on a postulate.

Although in a first short period the phenomena seemed to have a better explanation then the math to give explanation to several phenomena diverged.

That reminds me the diatribe against the ephycyles fought by Copernicus and Galilei..

The first big ALARM are "Negative definite energies" necessary for Dirac to attain antimatter and spin...

That is the first big price to pay for having denied a positive background energy density for what we consider the vacuum.

It is of paramount importance about this what Maxwell wrote:

---------------------------------------------------------------

from THE SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OFJAMES CLERK MAXWELL

https://ia800908.us.archive.org/24/items/scientificpapers01maxw/scientificpapers01maxw.pdf

"The intrinsic energy of the field of gravitation must therefore be less where ever there is a resultant gravitating force.

As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of volume greater than

1/8pi *R2

where R is the greatest possible value of the intensity of gravitating force in any part of the universe.

The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is a resultant attraction.

As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

------------------------------------------------------

so basically the acceptance of universally isotropic speed of light, against Maxwell and Lorentz viewpoints, it was preferred to ovverride the conservation laws..

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", Thomas Kuhn exposed the challenges of herd mentality rejecting scientific breakthroughs. Practical scientific change finally happened with the "authorities" died off.

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo13179781.html

By achieving political enforcement Lysenkoism decimated Soviet biochemical science, causing many deaths.

https://ethos.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/id/560/

Antisemitism resulted in the publication of "100 Authors against Einstein". https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Relativity%20Theory/Download/8680

Albert Einstein commented: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough" https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8615729-why-100-if-i-were-wrong-one-would-have-been

Today there is major publicity for the IPCC, with little mention of the 6 major volumes by the NIPCC (NonGovernmental International Panel on Climate Change.) http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

1) How do you propose to uphold the Royal Society's foundation of Science:

"in nullius verba" (Take Nobody's Word).

2) How are we to avoid anti-Semitism, Lysenkoism, and similar political lemming drives?

Johan K. Fremerey : Regarding "position coordinates of the electron", you wrote, "Isn't the bound electron rather a spread than a localized object?"

A body with some rest mass will always have its center of mass, which can have well defined position coordinates. On the other hand, waves can possess energy but no rest mass. Hence, a wave or wavelet will not have any well-defined position coordinates. An electron, with well-defined rest mass will always have well defined (instantaneous) position coordinates of its center of mass, even if the electron structure and its field do have spatial spread. Unfortunately, due to a conceptual mistake in the potential energy term of Schrödinger equation, position coordinates of the electron in hydrogen atom have been lost in its solution. Since the position coordinates are lost in the erroneous Schrödinger equation, the representation of electron got transformed from a particle to a wave or wavelet in QM. Actually, with a well-defined rest mass, an electron is always a particle and not a wave.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu: "the representation of electron got transformed from a particle to a wave or wavelet in QM."

Why not in case of its bound state? Why shouldn't the wave-particle dualism apply to electrons as well under different environmental conditions?

David L. Hagen,

I agree with your concerns regarding prevailing academic environment and authoritarian pressures that hinder any real progress in Fundamental Physics research.

Well, there is no magic wand to overcome the natural Inertia that resists any change in ruling erroneous Belief Systems. May be the required change is going to be a slow and steady process.

The Ptolemaic system, a geocentric cosmological model, survived for nearly 1400 years. It did not affect the evolution of Life or development of Human race on earth in any way. Similarly, if the current erroneous cosmological models do survive for another few hundred years, that too will not affect the evolution of Life or development of Human race on earth in any way.

“…I agree with your concerns regarding prevailing academic environment and authoritarian pressures that hinder any real progress in Fundamental Physics research…”

- yeah, the prevailing academic environment and authoritarian pressures quite really hinder any real progress in Fundamental Physics research. However this point isn’t unique in this case, academic environment and authoritarian really rather eagerly want to make the real progress, so, say, that

“….Well, there is no magic wand to overcome the natural Inertia that resists any change in ruling erroneous Belief Systems.…..”

-isn’t completely correct. Some members of the academic environment really attempt to overcome the natural Inertia. That is another thing that these members really intellectually aren’t able to make something that would be really new and really scientific, but they use the other – and rather banal and quite natural in the environment - ways at “overcoming of the inertia”, last example of such attempts see SS comments in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force/comments

Cheers

Johan K. Fremerey : "Why shouldn't the wave-particle dualism apply to electrons as well under different environmental conditions?"

As per Wikipedia, "Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that quantum entities exhibit particle or wave properties according to the experimental circumstances."

Actually however, an object cannot possess magical property of changing itself to a particle or a wave depending upon the 'experimental circumstances' or 'environmental conditions'.

As per another view, "The wave-particle dual nature of matter particles and of radiation is a declaration of our inability to describe physical reality within one unified classical theory because separately neither a classical particle approach nor a classical wave approach can fully explain the observed phenomena."

To understand the wave-particle duality of electron, we first need to understand the structure of electron. As per my understanding,

[One particular spherically symmetric solution of vector wave equation in elastic space continuum (aether) shows the electron structure as consisting of a central core of about 1.61 fm (10-15 m) radius containing a standing strain wave and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying amplitude. The radial wave field for electron may be given by f(r).eiK(r+ct)and that for positron by f(r).eiK(r-ct). Here K represents the wave number of the radial wave field and could be of the order of 1015 m-1. The amplitude factor f(r) is proportional to 1/r. The concept of charge is related to the direction of propagation, intensity and interaction characteristics of radial wave field.

This picture of the electron is drastically different from the conventional point mass and point charge notion generally taken for granted. In this *core-field picture of electron* (or positron), the mass energy is characteristically distributed in space and its charge property is represented by the interaction characteristic of its wave field. This radially decaying wave field replaces the notion of virtual photons. About 65 percent of the total mass energy of the electron (positron) is contained in the central core region and the remaining 35 percent is distributed in its wave field. The characteristic frequency of oscillations of the standing wave field of the electron/positron core is of the order of 8X1022 Hz.]

For more details, see attached short note on Space Deformations.

From this electron structure, we can understand that particle characteristics are produced by the central core of the electron and the wave characteristics are produced by the surrounding intrinsic electrostatic field which gives rise to induced electric and magnetic fields accompanying an electron in motion. Whole electron never turns into a wave, whether in free or bound state.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu: "One particular spherically symmetric solution of vector wave equation in elastic space continuum (aether) shows the electron structure as consisting of a central core of about 1.61 fm (10-15 m) radius containing a standing strain wave and surrounded by a radial phase wave field with decaying amplitude."

This seems to comply with my tentative proton model, see reference below. The idea of electrons forming a sea that entirely fills solid matter on the other hand appears difficult to imagine with the electron as sort of a point particle.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Johan K. Fremerey „1.61“ seems exactly right to me as iSpace theory shows beyond any reasonable doubt charge to be „just“ GoldenRatio (aka 1.61…) in native iSpace-IQ unit system (able to do away with all human artifacts whatsoever!). If your exponent of 10^-15m makes sense though, I doubt as this is „just“ in the re (classical electron radius) range. I need to have a look on your model with iSpace toolkit for verification of your ideas.

The heart of physics is space-time.

Space-time consists of two layers: chord (tonality) space-time and non-chord (atonality) space-time; The former is expressed by chords (quantum spectrum, strings) and is often used in music, painting, etc. The latter is expressed by an external reference frame (clock, ruler, reference object) and is often used in classical physics, etc. The former is chord semantics (internal action) and the latter is relative concepts (external phenomena).

Preprint Chord Spacetime

Dear All,

In my first post initiating this discussion, I wrote, "Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High-Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination."

Whereas some researchers, including Soumendra Nath Thakur and Ciro Alberto Sánchez had agreed with the above suggestion, some other researchers, including Jixin Chen, Christian G. Wolf, Sergey Shevchenko and John Hodge had disagreed with the suggested approach.

So far, no other credible alternative for systematic evaluation and gradation of fundamental research papers has been put up by anybody. Based on the comments and opinions of various researchers, I wish to make a modified suggestion for continuous evaluation and gradation of Research Papers in Fundamental Physics.

The proposal is to set up a fundamental Research Evaluation Forum (REF) on ResearchGate itself. This REF may be an automated system and overseen or monitored by ResearchGate (RG) administration. The evaluation and gradation of published research articles or preprints of research papers already uploaded on ResearchGate may proceed on following lines.

1. The RG may setup an automated REF system, preferably by replacing their current 'Research Spotlight' system, to receive original research papers for evaluation and gradation under (say) three different categories of (a) Particle and Quantum Physics, (b) Relativity and Gravitational Physics (c) Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology.

2. The RG members may submit (by providing DOI or RG link) maximum one research paper per month to the REF portal, with a small synopsis (of about 100 to 200 words) specifying whether their paper is about (a) validation or improving upon any existing theory or model, or (b) highlights some significant error or mistake in any existing theory or model, or (c) proposes a significantly better alternative theory or model.

3. The RG administration may seek the cooperation of all RG members to assist in evaluation and gradation of papers on REF portal by working as anonymous reviewers of research papers that match their own field of interest.

4. The actual evaluation process may be formulated as follows.

(a) RG members desirous of taking part in REF as anonymous reviewers may be required to first login to the RG/REF portal and then select one paper out of a list of all papers available on REF for review and evaluation.

(b) The self-appointed reviewer will be required to read the paper under review and then choose one of the three alternative text panel tabs for making appropriate comments and ticking Recommended or Rejected boxes.

5. The requirements of three comment tabs may be formulated as follows.

(a) Appreciation Tab: Clicking on the Appreciation tab will open a text panel for entering appreciation comments of about 100 to 200 words. After entering the appreciation comments, reviewer may click on the Recommended button to complete the evaluation process.

(b) Criticism Tab: Clicking on the Criticism tab will open a text panel for entering critical comments of about 100 to 200 words to point out errors/mistakes or flaws/shortcomings in the paper under review. After entering the critical comments, reviewer may click on the Rejected button to complete the evaluation process.

(c) Query Tab: Clicking on the Query tab will open a text panel for entering comments seeking some clarifications from Author(s) of the paper under review. Such queries will be replied by the author(s) in due course of time. Pending such clarifications, the review and evaluation process by this reviewer will remain suspended.

6. The ID details of reviewers of each paper will remain recorded in the REF system but will not be displayed. That is, the reviewers will remain anonymous to the authors as well as to all other RG members. Reviewers will also be required not to reveal their identity in comments and not to refer to their own papers in such comments.

7. The REF system will maintain category wise lists of all submitted papers, with titles of the papers, number of Recommendations, number of Rejections and Total Score (=Number of Recommendations - Number of Rejections) against each paper. The name and affiliations of authors may not be included in this list. These lists may be made public to all RG members as well as non-members.

8. At the end of each month, these lists of papers under evaluation may be re-sequenced in descending order of Total Score. The papers, for which the Total Score remains negative for a month or more, may be removed from these lists.

9. To prevent spurious reviews, RG may employ AI tools to ensure that reviewer comments are relevant to the contents of the paper under evaluation. Suspicious comments may be reported to RG administration for detailed investigation.

In my opinion, study and unbiased review of other researcher's papers is a time consuming and difficult work, which most RG members may not like to undertake. However, for making any positive contribution in the advancement of Fundamental Research, they will need to be accordingly motivated for doing so.

Proposal submitted for opinion and feedback from all learned researchers. If there is general consensus on this (or modified) proposal, then RG administration may be approached for its implementation.

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu ,

This is a well thought out post.

If this endeavour is geared towards ascertaining the truth, I may suggest the incorporation of the “Greek method of peer-review” (see references below), in place of what happens today. By this method a particular proposition and its sponsor is subjected to interrogation with the aim of trying to reduce the proposal to an absurdity and bring out a contradiction. Failure to do so makes such propositions worthy of consideration. Success in doing so, demonstrates the incorrectness of the proposition.

But what do we have today? Dingle’s paradox was formulated in this light but rather than tow the Greek method, the opposite has been the case. Many of the interactions between theoretical physicists today has moved from one based on knowledge to one founded on belief systems, making it not so different from religion.

For example, it is a belief, not knowledge, that no substance can have a Poisson ratio of – 1, even though materials with a negative Poisson ratio are reported and discussed in science literature. Some may also seek to redefine what a transverse wave is, based on individual belief system, while others will hold on to the belief that light is a longitudinal wave.

Such beliefs are easily reduced to absurdity upon interrogation, but then this method of peer-review is not currently in fashion.

§ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

§ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Mr. Akinbo Ojo

Sir, your comment is eye opening. The method you are referring to sounds like the Socratic method or critical thinking known as Socratic questioning. This approach involves a conversation between individuals in which a proposition or idea is examined through a series of questions and answers to deepen understanding or reveal contradictions and flaws in the argument.

In the context of peer review, this method can be applied to verify a proposition or theory. Peers or reviewers may question the reasoning, assumptions, and implications of the proposal. By trying to reveal absurdities or contradictions, reviewers aim to uncover weaknesses in an argument or theory. If the proposal withstands this rigorous test without falling prey to contradictions or logical fallacies, it is considered more credible and worthy of consideration.

This approach encourages critical thinking and thorough examination of ideas, promoting deeper understanding and refinement by rigorously scrutinizing ideas. This can be a useful way to assess the strength and validity of propositions in academic or intellectual settings.

Soumendra Nath Thakur ,

Exactly my thinking. You further refined my contribution. Thanks.

“…If this endeavour is geared towards ascertaining the truth, I may suggest the incorporation of the “Greek method of peer-review” (see references below), in place of what happens today.…

§ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic§ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum...”

- that looks as really too specific explanation of “Fundamental Physics is stuck in conceptual crisis and reached a dead end. What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?”, i.e. by direct implementation of “Greek method of peer-review”, where

“……By this method a particular proposition and its sponsor is subjected to interrogation with the aim of trying to reduce the proposal to an absurdity and bring out a contradiction. …”

Really scientific communications in sciences well differ from what was in Antic Greece, now scientific exchange proceeds mostly as exchange by published in scientific journals papers, which must be – as that essentially was a few dozens of years ago – peer-reviewed by competent reviewers, which must characterize reviewed papers according a few quite clear criteria

- submitted paper should contain new results,

- which must be really scientific, i.e.

- the set of basic assumption of the presented scientific approach, hypothesis, model, theory, experimental schemes, etc., must be self-consistent;

- from the assumptions no any really senseless consequence must follow,

- mathematical formalism must be correct;

- presented results must be consistent with experiments,

- the results should be actual and useful in corresponding science.

Every point above in a peer-review must be concretely pointed and answered as “the reviewed paper is/isn’t in accordance with the criterion”, if isn’t – concretely in what and why isn’t.

Further the review must be considered by the author(s) and commented / rebutted if necessary, in concrete points;

- and finally the having sufficient competence journal’s editors must evaluate the review and the author’s response; and make really objective decision – the submission should be published or rejected.

That’s all, and that, again, was working essentially correctly a few dozens of years ago; however yeah, that practically doesn’t work in recent sciences, first of all in physics.

This situation exists now for a number of completely objective reasons. First of all last now more than 100 years physics by some ways meets with really fundamental problems, and so really scientific elaboration of the problems principally logically inevitably is possible only if a number of really fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case “Matter”, “Consciousness”, “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, are really scientifically defined.

Really all these phenomena/notions in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result completely logically inevitably is transcendent/mystic something. Besides, since any mystic principally cannot be scientifically grounded – and so principally there cannot have any scientific objections.

If earlier that above wasn’t too essential, and really that resulted practically only in appearance of SR and GR that are based on really transcendent/mystic postulates about “Space”, “Time” [and “Matter”, though] in last few dozens of years, when experimental technology is much more developed than 100 years ago, recent experimental data address to really fundamental objects/events/processes in Matter, and so cannot be scientifically analyzed in the mainstream.

Correspondingly for this “objective” reason really all “fundamental” publications now are some really fantastic stories about really fantastic “discovered” things;. however action of this reason is rather, if too, enhanced by the, seems quite naturally appeared, “subjective” point – a couple of dozens of years ago in all journals appeared the rule that the authors must pointed a few “non-blind revivers”,

- what really is used by editors only aimed at –authors of a submission belong or not to some authoritative “scientific” community – really now of composers of fairy tales; and if not, then submission can be rejected, and if in the submission contains some important scientific results, that can be published by other authors without any unpleasant consequences. An example see the link in SS post November 20.

Really, again, real fundamental physics can now exist only provided that the phenomena/notions above are scientifically defined, and principally essentially that must be next – after classic and QM physicses – “Planck scale physics”, i.e. only basing on the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, the links to corresponding papers see in SS post, page 4, November 4.

Cheers

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu ,

yes, there are issues in PHysics infact several claims were made in 100 years but were ignored.

The largest issues concern relativity: having accepted Einstein's conception of emptiness against Lorentz electrodynamics had consequences...

The equivalence of inertial frames brings back the Newtonian emptiness.

In the attempt to make quantum physics (DIRAC EQUATION) relativistic, since SR emptiness cancels any background with a positive energy, it compelled to resort to negative definite energies.

That involves bizarre consequences, particles which go backward in time (positrons). Then going deeper to eliminate infinities, emerging from the theory to account for certain phenomena, it was accepted to replace these infinities with negative fractionary numbers and makee operations with them (in a similar fashion of a Laplace transform for circuits with the difference that the complex variable in the Laplace transform has a very specific meaning).

Although geniuses (DIRAC and FEYNMANN) found these tricks which eventually made the theory match with experiments, the situation is now totally unsatisfactory because the meaning of it all is LOST.

Lorentz Electrodynamics should have been taken seriously. It was not understood how different were Lorentz Transformations found by Lorentz and the one derived by Einstein. Poincare' unfortunately did not help...

That is basically the point where physics got broken.

We are the same as Copernicus when he found absurdity in the Ptolemaic epicycles. It was enough a degree of freedom to make everything work as we observe: Earth spinning (REVOLUTIO).

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

In your comment (March 1, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Am_I_the_only_one_that_is_doubtful_of_LIGOs_detection_of_gravitational_wave_GW150914) you note that before creating the International Scientific Tribunal [1], it is necessary to discuss the reasons for the emergence of fake fundamental science. In your analysis “Fundamental Physics is stuck in conceptual crisis and reached a dead end. What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?” (https://tinyurl.com/2whb44sa) you put forward three reasons and also propose the creation of the International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation. This Experts Panel could authoritatively declare the fallacy of a number of modern constructions of fundamental science.

I agree with you that such Experts Panel needs to be created. In the future, an International Scientific Tribunal may be created on its basis [1]. Such Experts Panel may be created in the near future. You and I note the same shortcomings of modern science. If five or six more researchers join us, then we can consider this to be the beginning of the creation of the the International Experts Panel on Misconceptions of Fundamental Science.

As for the three reasons for the fallacy of fundamental science, I agree with them. I also agree with a number of other researchers who put forward other reasons. But there is a main cause, which is that modern constructions of fundamental sciences are based on hypotheses. Starting with Albert Einstein, instead of studying and understanding the world around us, the method of creating it using hypotheses was adopted.

You offer a broad discussion of the shortcomings of science. I agree that such a discussion needs to be carried out. But that's not the main thing. It is necessary to discard all false constructs of science and explore the world around us, develop this research and implement it into life.

Much has already been done. I mentioned a number of such studies in [1]. The Polish researcher Mikhail Gryzinsky did a lot. I have done a lot: I created the foundations of a new fundamental science [2] - [3]. This is science without hypotheses. I have created more than a dozen different theories, for example, the new Astronomical Theory of Climate Change [4] - [5]. It explains the cause of long-term climate changes such as ice ages and definite them. But these are not theories like the Theory of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, in which hypotheses are accepted and an explanation of the surrounding world is created on their basis. My theories are like the theory for locksmiths, like the theory of a ship or the theory of an airplane. They describe how to cut out a part, how to build a ship or an airplane. For example, the Theory of Interaction [2] shows how to determine the forces of interaction between bodies and calculate their movements.

You define yourself as an independent researcher. There are many independent scientists at Research Gate. Most of them are highly educated and talented researchers. This allows them to delve into the intricacies of the Mainstream's constructions and see their worthlessness. Such researchers, united, could create an Institute for Independent Research. Among independent researchers there are those who, based on their hypotheses, also create an imaginary world. Therefore, it is necessary to distance ourselves from these works by introducing an additional definition, such as, for example, the Institute of Independent and Non-hypothetical Research.

This Institute can, having discarded all the false constructions of Mainstream science, begin to study the world around us. The results of knowledge of the real world will immediately be perceived in society, and the authority of this Institute will quickly grow. Such an Institute can remain independent if it provides its own funding. As I already mentioned, independent researchers are talented people. Therefore, each of them has ideas that can be translated into products and goods that will be used in society.

There are a lot of other works needed by society that such an Institute could carry out. For example, there is the problem of contemporary climate warming. Mainstream science has accepted that climate warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. There is a huge number of works that show that there are other causes of climate warming, and the carbon dioxide cause is insignificant. Society could order this Institute to analyze these two scientific directions and issue recommendations in which direction society should develop further.

The second problem: atomic weapons and the danger of their use. Now the leaders of a number of NATO countries speak out without embarrassment in favor of the use of atomic weapons. So this problem becomes one of the main ones. How can this be solved so that all nations, both those who have atomic weapons and those who do not have them, feel safe? I believe that only the Institute for Independent Research can solve such a problem.

As this Institute matures, its capabilities will increase. It will create its own scientific journals, nominate worthy scientists for Nobel Prizes, submit its proposals to future space research programs [6], train the younger generation of future researchers, etc.

There are 20 million researchers on Research Gate. If only one out of 100 of these researchers begin to study the world around us, and not fantasize about its structure, our lives will quickly begin to change for the better.

References

1. Smulsky J.J. (2023). International Scientific Tribunal. Ann Rev Resear. 10(3): 555786. DOI: 10.19080/ARR.2023.10.555786. http://dx.doi.org/10.19080/ARR.2023.10.555786.

https://juniperpublishers.com/arr/pdf/ARR.MS.ID.555786.pdf.

2. Smulsky, J.J. (2004). The Theory of Interaction. Ekaterinburg: Cultural Information Bank. http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/TVEnA5_2.pdf.

3. Smulsky J.J. (2019). The Upcoming tasks of Fundamental Science. M.: Sputnik+ Publishing House. 134 p. ISBN 978-5-9973-5228-8. https://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/InfPrZaFN.pdf.

4. Smulsky J.J. (2016). Fundamental Principles and Results of a New Astronomic Theory of Climate Change. Advances in Astrophysics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1-21. http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/FPNwClCh6J.pdf; http://www.isaacpub.org/Journal/AdAp.

5. Smulsky, J.J. (2021). Long-Term Changes in the Earth's Climate. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, UK, 179 p. ISBN (10): 1-5275-7289-7, ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-7289-8. https://www.cambridgescholars.com/product/978-1-5275-7289-8.

6. Smulsky J.J. (2022). The Evolution of the Moon’s Orbit Over 100 Million Years and Prospects for the Research in the Moon. In: Lunar Science - Habitat and Humans. Edited by Yann-Henri Chemin. London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen, 2022, 18-39, DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102392. ISBN: 978-1-80355-079-4. http://mts.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/the-evolution-of-the-moon-s-orbit-over-100-million-years-and-prospects-for-the-research-in-the-moon.

Sincerely yours Prof. Joseph J. Smulsky

Institute of Earth's Cryosphere, Tyum SC of SB RAS, Federal Research Center

Malygina Str. 86,

625026, Tyumen, Russia.

Tel. +7-3452-68-87-14, E-mail: [email protected];

https://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/;

http://wgalactica.ru/smul1/.

Hear, here.

Recent SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Internal_and_external_problems_of_theoretical_physics/1

- is relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Joseph,

with the abundance and preponderance now of publications of all kinds, we now face the inevitable "needle in the haystack" problem. Even if there were a revolutionary developed idea, it might be lost in the blizzard of quantity, not quality.

thank you for your contribution.

Dale

Dear Dale,

Our destiny is in our hands!

What needs to be done so that the Truth, like a needle, does not get lost in a haystack, or, in other words, in a stack of straw?

If you find a needle in a stack of straw, do not lose it and tell everyone about it. If everyone does this, not a single needle will be lost!

On the other hand, never pass straw to others. If everyone does this, then there will be no stacks of straw, and all the needles will be in plain sight!

Our destiny is in our hands!

Sincerely yours,

Joseph

Hear, here, Joseph!

well said. I concur; the future must be built one truth at a time.

regards

Dear Dale and Joseph,

Let us attempt to implement the suggestion, "If you find a needle in a stack of straw, do not lose it and tell everyone about it. If everyone does this, not a single needle will be lost!"

I have observed on ResearchGate that almost all researchers are trying their level best to promote their own research work, their own viewpoint. Most often each researcher firmly believes that his own viewpoint is most valuable, and if followed or adopted by others, can solve most of the current problems faced by fundamental physics. Unfortunately, each researcher laments that other researchers do not spare sufficient time to study his research work in depth to fully appreciate it.

To overcome this situation, each researcher must stop promoting his own research work and sincerely start promoting the research of some other researchers which he finds the BEST of all that came to his notice. For this each researcher must spare some time for in-depth study of some research papers that appear promising to him on first look itself.

Intention is to take the researchers out of the "Frog in the Well" syndrome.

Best Regards

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu You have some very nice thoughts... but "a wild man in a tuxedo is still a wild man"... and wild men still consider Einstein's equations... How could I EVER promote that ?!

First of all we need a "Siegfried" to get rid of the old toothless Einstein-Lemaître dragon...

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu ,

I agree with you. Most of us must be humble enough to understand that it is quite unlikely that he can find a new theory, since the best minds in history took years to build one.

a) promoting a revolutionary theory of somebody else. I did in the case of Gary Nash Article Modified general relativity and dark matter

Although I am not 100% convinced that it is right, I also subscribed it for the participation to the break through price, since it is a step forward to my understanding. It is certainly better than GR, since it considers the "gravitational energy" to solve DM and DE puzzles and at the end of the day works with a sort of background... it is an incredible job on very difficult topics..

b) promoting a research pointing out some flaws of orthodox Physics

this to my understanding should be done and should be shared and people should listen. I did it in several occasions and I have pointed out several "incongruences" of Special relativity especially concerning relativity of simultaneity.

c) promoting own's new theory.

I agree with you, it should be avoided in general, it should be an exception.

The risk is to lose one's own credibility and be called a "crackpot"

The point is that alone we can do something but it is little if compared to what happens if we collaborate openly.

But first everybody must be aware that the wealth of experimental test and observations performed so far must be considered carefully before considering any new step.

Stefano Quattrini

Being called "crackpot" by official crackpots is an award rather then a humiliation... presenting something new means there are only a few or no peers to review your work... and a PhD in "Bigbangology" is worthless !

Personally I am sick and tired to discuss anything at all with the space bending Big-Bang-society... discussions tend to go in a circle and lead nowhere because "Einstein & Co said..." We need a forum where Einstein & Co's space bending, dark matter and energy are just as welcome as the Mafia...

"Can anybody derive the constant of gravity from Newton's theory ? No we can't because Einstein & Co said..." Ha !

Berndt Barkholz ,

I agree with you. Space-time cannot bend...., By the way Space-time does not exist it is already an artifact based on wrong assumptions. The metric distortion on the other hand has revealed an effective way to describe a special medium to change behaviour. It is not a case in fact that the effects described by GR can be express in term of Navier stokes equations of incompressible fluids.

“…

I agree with you. Most of us must be humble enough to understand that it is quite unlikely that he can find a new theory, since the best minds in history took years to build one…”

- that are, of course, some strange claim. Really any really new things in any science, including physics, attend firstly in only one real scientist head, sometimes in a few, if they are some team. And now the mainstream scientific community is such, that really just new really scientific theories, models, etc., aren’t promoted in the mainstream [and on RG, though], because of most of Great Scientists that have made “fundamental breakthroughs” in view of new results, if the results are fundamental , turn out to be mostly some composers of really unscientific fairy tales, etc.

At that, if some of such Greats understand something in new results, they have acute desire to discover that and to be really Greats.

So if the real authors aren’t “officially” known, any information about the results and the authors is blocked everywhere that is possible.

The real example in physics is the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- which is the base of real – and uniquely possible - physics development on the way “classical physics” – QM – Planck scale physics, including where more 30 really fundamental physical problems are either solved or essentially clarified,

- but more 50 submissions of the model papers were/are rejected by editors of physical journals, arXiv, etc.

As well as, say, if some information appears in some pop-physical sources, it is deleted, an example see reDzennn 6 passages comment in https://phys.org/news/2024-04-logic-doesnt.html

[and in a number of other phys.org articles, where some strange “moderation” appeared a couple of months ago]

, it seems some Greats already are ready “to discover” Planck scale physics, for what “fundamental papers” with hundreds of really senseless [since real Planck scale physics is quite new] references are already prepared, and the Greats are rather bothered that despite the blocking the model now is, though “non-officially”, rather, if, as they think, too, known.

Returning to the thread question more concretely – if some theory, model, approach, etc., is consistent with the criteria for really scientific research, it is really scientific, quite independently on - how many people understands that; more see SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-criteria-do-you-have-in-mind-while-characterizing-a-scientific-theory/31 , pages 29, 30, 31.

Cheers

Unfortunately Sergey... there is no "thumb down" ! Why don't you talk with the "Greats" of your kind in another forum... instead of wasting your time with us "less greats" ?

Dear Berndt, that

“…Unfortunately Sergey... there is no "thumb down" ! Why don't you talk with the "Greats" of your kind in another forum... instead of wasting your time with us "less greats" ?..”

- looks as rather strange claim. RG is rather popular platform for scientific discussions, and so now has a few millions of members; including from top-scientific collaborations, installations, institutes, etc.; including a lot of Greats are RG members; and essential part of members are quite professional scientists, including physicists.

Correspondingly yet a few years ago the discussions on RG of rather numerous really educated scientists were rather professional, when the posters told each other and for RG populace about fundamental breakthroughs in Great SR/GR, Standard Model, cosmology, etc.,

- including at that, say, in RG threads menus lists of few “experts” in threads topics were pointed.

But after on RG SS posts, where the SS&VT the “Information as Absolute” conception and the Planck scale model were/are presented and commented, including where rather numerous really mainstream physics “fundamental” fantasies were/are revealed/commented, appeared ~ ten years ago,

- professional scientists, including physicists, including Greats, which firstly rather intensively marked SS posts, which contained really interesting ideas, by “minuses” [such option was on RG in those times, now only “pluses”/ “recommendations” remain],

- gradually disappeared, and now seems only a few ones remain – Stam Nicolis , Juan Weisz [possibly some few others?].

In parallel simultaneously on RG a dozen of extremely vivid posters appeared, who have some too vague imagination about what physics is at all, which flood threads by intensive wording diarrhea immediately after any really scientific post; now that are mostly the SS ones. Examples, say, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Speed_of_light_independent_of_the_speed_of_the_source_or_constant_for_all_observers#view=65a27033a9adfc0b5b082ceb/64/65/65/65/66/67/66/65/68/67/68/67/66/65/65/64/65/69/68/65/66/67/69/65/69/70/71/70/71/70/71/70/70/71/70/70/71/70/71/70/71/71/71/72/71/72/72/73/72/71/72/73/71/72/73/73/74/74/74/75/75/75/76/76/77/76/77/78,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/what_is_the_most_important_problem_in_the_theoretical_physics_now/1646,

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-true-that-physicists-do-not-want-to-understand-quantum-mechanics ; etc.

But that doesn’t mean that the professionals, including Greats, don’t read the SS posts, the posts are well useful in that about more see in yesterday SS post; while they don’t waste time on the spammers’ posts, that for them isn’t a problem in this case.

Cheers

Mein lieber Herr Shevchenko... sie zeigen ein überhebliches Selbstwertgefühl... eine überhebliche Selbstgefälligkeit und klingen wie ein total dogmatisiertes Nebelhorn...

There are no "Greats"... but lots of wannabees... dogmatized foghorns...

Cheers...

Dear Sergey Shevchenko,

I understand your concerns.

But do you agree that unlike the applied sciences, the phenomenon of "Frog in the Well" syndrome in Fundamental Physics Research does exist and is a major hinderance in "finding a needle in a stack of straw".

In spite of tens of thousands of advanced research papers being published every year, there is hardly any perceptible advancement in Fundamental Physics. One reason is that under the current system of research dissemination, it is virtually impossible for any researcher to know about the research contributions of all other researchers. Second reason is that when a researcher develops a model of certain aspect of Nature, due to long mental association and efforts put in, psychologically he starts feeling that his model is the best under the sun and other researchers must take note of it.

It is quite possible that many researchers who continue to repeatedly push their models for wider acceptance, may not be succeeding because their models may be flawed for one or the other reason. Most common reason behind the flawed or faulty models is the plausibility of their founding assumptions and ad hoc assertions.

As I have suggested in my last post, if we start promoting the high-quality research work of other researchers, instead of promoting our own work, then many flawed models will get filtered in the very beginning and only good quality research work will come up for wider discussion and further evaluation. Once we start promoting the high-quality research work of other researchers, then sooner or later, our own high quality research work too will get noticed by the wider scientific community.

Regards

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

Your words is good: “Once we start promoting the high-quality research work of other researchers, then sooner or later, our own high quality research work too will get noticed by the wider scientific community.”

I like Indian wisdom. It seems that Krishna said: “No matter what I do, no matter how I act, no one will condemn me in all three worlds. But if I act unrighteously, then others will act unrighteously!”

Joseph.

Stefano Quattrini: "But first everybody must be aware that the wealth of experimental test and observations performed so far must be considered carefully before considering any new step."

"Experimental tests and observations" are recognized if they fit the current mainstream theories and - regrettably - not the other way round.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Cosmology_Do_we_still_need_experiments

Please note that experimental results in support of Mach's Principle as cited under 1. support some prior theoretical findings and proposals by James C. Keith, i.e. not my own.

Johan K. Fremerey ,

I was adressing to the experiments performed so far which must be considered. Nevertheless I agree that other observations and experiments are certainly needed....

Stefano Quattrini : "I was adressing to the experiments performed so far which must be considered."

Please note that the experiments I refer to have actually been performed some 50 years ago, but the results are still not considered in view of mainstream theory.

Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...

The last posts that really relate to the thread question are the SS post on page 7.

Recent SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dark_Matter-Do_we_need_to_change_the_law_of_gravity_Or_is_there_extra_mass_in_the_universe#view=662d7d1462f33170f0070224/5/6/7/6/7/7/7 pages 5,7,8

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mass_energy_equation_and_energy-momentum_relation_E2_mc22_pc2_fundamental/10

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_the_most_convincing_physical_experiment_Not_Thought_Experiment_that_conclusively_validates_Einsteins_Special_Theory_of_Relativity#view=6630bef58309f9d74b0d49d4/154/155/155

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_Quantum_Physics_still_use_the_concept_of_particle

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Photons_have_zero_mass_P_mc_If_m_0_P_0_No_light_energy#view=6626037c14993435bc05c712/11/12/12/13

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_possible_for_a_second_and_more_time_dimensions_to_exist#view=663454774b43cd33a802e672/2- and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_time_a_fundamental_property_of_the_universe/8

https://www.researchgate.net/post/WHAT_IS_THE_MYSTERIOUS_STUFF_OF_INFORMATION_A_Short_but_Clear_Definition/246pages 242, 243, 244, 246

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_illusion_of_knowledge2#view=6625410c5d8030b32501bacb/7/8/7/8/6/5/7/8/8, though,

- are relevant to this thread question

Cheers

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu: "What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?"

Theoretical speculation is higher rated than experimental results.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Cosmology_Do_we_still_need_experiments

Johan K. Fremerey

In my opinion, experimental results must be logically analyzed for consistency and then appropriately used to reject theoretical speculations.

On the other hand, mainstream scientific community is using the experimental results of Black Hole photographs obtained by tremendous global effort to support the theoretical speculation of Black Holes.

I have tried to reject this theoretical speculation by pointing out logical flaws in the founding assumptions behind such speculations. For example, I have pointed out that,

1. It is fundamentally wrong to assume, implicitly or explicitly, electrons, protons and ions to be non-interacting particles under any circumstances, especially under a high-density environment. It is well-known that electrostatic repulsion between two protons is 1036 times stronger than the gravitational force between them, yet in astrophysics of stellar cores, electrons, protons and ions are often assumed to be non-interacting for invoking the use of Electron Degeneracy Pressure and hydrodynamic Equation of State under high density environment.

2. Application of Fermi-Dirac Statistics to degenerate electrons, by treating them as non-interacting particles, to accelerate them to high kinetic energies through the action of Pauli's Exclusion Principle is fundamentally wrong. Electrons can never be accelerated to high kinetic energy without electromagnetic interaction in some or other form. The kinetic energy density of degenerate electrons can never be declared as the Electron Degeneracy Pressure just because their dimensions (ML-1T-2) are common, without incorporating a physical mechanism to enable electrons to exchange their momentum with protons and ions through elastic collisions.

3. Since the Astrophysics textbooks do not cover the theory of elasticity the students of Astrophysics are not prepared to handle the solid state of stellar cores or to work out stresses and strains in solid spherical bodies under self-gravitation. That is why Astrophysicists make use of invalid Electron Degeneracy Pressure and hydrodynamic Equation of State, by implicitly assuming all electrons, protons and ions to be non-interacting, and wrongly collapse solid iron stellar cores into Neutron Stars and Black Holes.

4. With the advent of Quantum Mechanics in 1926, the Physics community abandoned the Bohr-Sommerfeld model and started modeling the hydrogen atom on the solutions of Schrödinger equation that described the position of electron by a probability density and not by any well-defined trajectory of the electron. Ever since, generations of Physicists are being taught that the instant-to-instant position of an electron around the proton can only be defined by a probability density because the electron itself turns into a wave packet as predicted by QM. Now I have pointed out that the Schrödinger equation is founded on a conceptual mistake in the representation of Potential Energy. The Coulomb potential energy of the proton electron pair in Hydrogen atom, which is inversely proportional to their instantaneous separation distance, has been erroneously modeled as time invariant in the Schrödinger equation. Since the position coordinates of the electron have been wrongly omitted in the input to the equation, naturally the exact position of the electron is lost in the final solution. This has created all the weirdness in subsequent solutions and interpretations of QM.

5. The real electron particle never gets transformed to any wave packet; it is only the intrinsic electric field of the electron which acquires wave-like properties during motion of the electron. I have analyzed the energy balance of an isolated proton-electron pair and developed the electron trajectory by using energy and angular momentum conservation principle in the central force field system. Based on this methodology I have provided an improved and more detailed model of dynamic electron orbits than the old Sommerfeld model. During emission of a photon, elliptical orbit transitions are also computed and plotted. Orbit transition time is of the order of a fraction of a femtosecond. I have extended this methodology for electron orbits in hydrogen molecular bond and computed the H2 bond energy.

Article Ionic Gravitation and Ionized Solid Iron Stellar Bodies

Article Dynamic Electron Orbits in Atomic Hydrogen

Gurcharn Singh Sandhu: "experimental results must be logically analyzed for consistency"

This in the first place would require careful analysis of the experimental setup. In case of search for gravitational waves this was done by KAGRA with the result that gravitational wave signals as claimed by LIGO could not be reproduced after elimination of mechanical interference from inside the experimental setup. Experimental results in favour of Mach's Principle, as suggested by James C. Keith, see references below, have not been seriously analysed so far, because mainstream a priori refuses Mach's Principle.

Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...

Dear Gurcharn Singh Sandhu,

I approve of your efforts to solve the problem of the motion of an electron around a proton without the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Similar solutions were also obtained and used by the outstanding Polish physicist Mikhail Gryzinsky.

However, there is an exact solution to this problem taking into account the electromagnetic interaction of an electron and a proton [1] – [2].

1. Smulsky J.J. The new Fundamental Trajectories: part 1- Hyperbolic/Elliptic trajectories//Galilcan Electrodynamics. Vol. 13, No. 2, 2002, pp. 23-28. https://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/smul1/English1/FounPhisics/NFT.pdf.

2. Smulsky J.J. The new Fundamental Trajectories: part 2 - Parabolic/ Elliptic trajectories// Galilcan Electrodynamics. Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002, pp. 47-51.

Joseph.

Fundamental physics faces the scientific paradigm problem that non-chord observers cannot understand chord phenomena such as: quanta, strings.

What's wrong with physics ?

1. Einstein's gravity...

2. Einstein's gravity...

3. Einstein's gravity...

4....

5....

6....

Newton's just slightly corrected theory allows to connect gravity with atom physics (and that very exact!!)... but not one of you guy's is able to listen and to check... most of you are helplessly dogmatized trying to find the solution by still using Einstein's magical space bending equations... wake up ! But I am tired and will leave you now... I am just wasting precious time on these pages...

Maybe some of you will wake up before it's too late... but good night fellows and sleep well !

Cosmin Visan

I conducted an internet search out of curiosity to find out if there is a real person named Cosmin Visan, or if a 12-year-old child invented such a character to bother people online. On the internet, there is only one person named "Cosmin Visan" who appears to have done a summer internship at CERN. The only statement attributed to him at CERN is - "I found the Swiss summer a very expensive one. I found everything to be about 5 times more expensive than in Romania." - (https://ep-news.web.cern.ch/content/olympic-winner-cern)"

Cosmin Visan

So throwing a big particle (a stone) at you doesn't bother you much... "it's just an idea in consciousness"... or maybe you will argue like Bohr that the stone first exists when you observed it... yeah "little Einstein", you really are a CERN scientist... :o) ...and now good bye !! Please don't address me again !

So you studied a lie (physics) but you call yourself a physicists (a liar)... oh yes... :o)

The thread question is scientifically answered in SS posts on page 7, and essentially page 8, more in detail see links in the posts.

Cheers

#Physics is a method from the part to the whole, the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts, such as: the blind man feels the elephant; Certain scientific experiments are reliable, but the overall conclusion can still be wrong.

“…Physics is a method from the part to the whole, the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts, such as: the blind man feels the elephant..”

- yeah, that is quite correct. However at that quite evident question appears – why that is so?

The scientific answer is – that is because of that in the mainstream philosophy and sciences, including physics, the “elephant”, i.e. really all fundamental phenomena/notions, first of all in this case. “Space”, “Time”, “Energy”, “Information”, “Matter”– and so everything in Matter, i.e. “particles”, “fundamental Nature forces” – and so “fields”, [etc., including “Consciousness”]

are fundamentally completely transcendent/uncertain/irrational, and so in every case when the mainstream attempts to study something besides what is observable by instruments on different pieces the elephant’s skin, and so addresses to any really fundamental problem, then result is completely inevitably logically is transcendent/mystic something.

Examples of this in mainstream physics are numerous in “fundamental physics” before 1980, after 1980. that are practically 100%.

Again in the thread – any real fundamental problems can be really scientifically solved only provided that the fundamental phenomena/notions above are really scientifically defined, what is possible, and is done, only in framework of the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

Just so more 30 fundamental physical problems are either solved, or clarified on the level, when ways to possible solutions are essentially clear, in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale informational physical model, which is based on the conception, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367397025_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

That is another case that any information about the conception and the model is blocked everywhere, and by any ways, where/that are possible, including on RG some strange things exist.

More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, some links work correctly.

Cheers