5 ms·

I would suggest reading "Space time quantization" [1] published in 1999 presenting a theory based on the same idea. This theory has since being developped and t

by chmike 10y ago

I would suggest reading "Space time quantization" [1] published in 1999 presenting a theory based on the same idea. This theory has since being developped and the latest results have been submitted for publication. These results are multiple. The most important of them are the explanation of the nature and properties of dark matter. But there is much more. The seeding work on this theory was published as early as 1967 and 1978. Publication into arXiv is too restricted, because of the endorser requirement, for the article to be published there. [1] http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/STQ/STQ.pdf http://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/STQ/STQ.pdf

semi-extrinsic 10y ago
I'm not casting any evaluation or judgment on the work you cite at all, but it's a lot easier to get a paper on the arXiv than into a non-trash journal. If the subject is too controversial to appear on the arXiv, most journal editors will bench reject it.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  In fairness, Foundations of Physics (where this paper by Meessen was published) isn't a trash journal, but it is an odd duck. The editor in chief is Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft, who everyone agrees is brilliant, and generally still rigorous strictly speaking, but whose interest have become much less mainstream. Articles published in the journal are rarely flawed in a technical sense, but they do often explore highly speculative avenues that are usually considered unpromising for good reason. I'd say there's a good analogy to cold fusion, which is a field that is highly unfashionable for good technical reasons, and which has attracted a lot of cranks, but in which there are still formally open problems and which can't be completely dismissed.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Yes, 't Hooft seems to have some interesting interests these days. I believe he's one of very few who think superdeterminism is a tenable explanation of entanglement.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      Yep. Here's him talking about it at the Perimeter Institute: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=15050094 http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=15050094
- chmike 10y ago
  There is a more recent article (2011) of A.Meessen about Space Time Quantification (STQ) on arXiv [1]. I didn't read it yet. The subject is not controversial. The theory is just revolutionary. It require to accept the hypothesis of quantum of measurable length. The quantum of length a is assumed to be 0 in actual general relativity and quantum mechanics. In STQ the quantum length a is assumed to be different of 0. This has huge implications. It allows to explain all elementary particles, their properties and possible interactions. The standard model is an empirical model that only includes what has been seen in experiments. STQ explains everything and can thus describe what has not yet been seen like Dark Matter. It explains its nature and describes its properties like the possible interactions. So quantification of space and time is not a new idea and there is already a sound theory built on it. My biased opinion is that it describes the real thing. This theory is not to be confused with a voxel like quantization of space. Publishing on arXiv boils down to find an endorser. A.Meessen has the academic credentials, but this is not enough. However I agree that it is easier than publishing in a peer review journal. [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4883 http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4883

by chmike 10y ago

semi-extrinsic 10y ago

I'm not casting any evaluation or judgment on the work you cite at all, but it's a lot easier to get a paper on the arXiv than into a non-trash journal. If the subject is too controversial to appear on the arXiv, most journal editors will bench reject it.

jessriedel 10y ago
In fairness, Foundations of Physics (where this paper by Meessen was published) isn't a trash journal, but it is an odd duck. The editor in chief is Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft, who everyone agrees is brilliant, and generally still rigorous strictly speaking, but whose interest have become much less mainstream. Articles published in the journal are rarely flawed in a technical sense, but they do often explore highly speculative avenues that are usually considered unpromising for good reason. I'd say there's a good analogy to cold fusion, which is a field that is highly unfashionable for good technical reasons, and which has attracted a lot of cranks, but in which there are still formally open problems and which can't be completely dismissed.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Yes, 't Hooft seems to have some interesting interests these days. I believe he's one of very few who think superdeterminism is a tenable explanation of entanglement.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Yep. Here's him talking about it at the Perimeter Institute: http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=15050094 http://pirsa.org/displayFlash.php?id=15050094
chmike 10y ago
There is a more recent article (2011) of A.Meessen about Space Time Quantification (STQ) on arXiv [1]. I didn't read it yet. The subject is not controversial. The theory is just revolutionary. It require to accept the hypothesis of quantum of measurable length. The quantum of length a is assumed to be 0 in actual general relativity and quantum mechanics. In STQ the quantum length a is assumed to be different of 0. This has huge implications. It allows to explain all elementary particles, their properties and possible interactions. The standard model is an empirical model that only includes what has been seen in experiments. STQ explains everything and can thus describe what has not yet been seen like Dark Matter. It explains its nature and describes its properties like the possible interactions. So quantification of space and time is not a new idea and there is already a sound theory built on it. My biased opinion is that it describes the real thing. This theory is not to be confused with a voxel like quantization of space. Publishing on arXiv boils down to find an endorser. A.Meessen has the academic credentials, but this is not enough. However I agree that it is easier than publishing in a peer review journal. [1] http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4883 http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.4883