3 ms·

Great comment, this is the kind of discussions I wanna see on the internet. It looks like the author has made an update of his theory in 2011 https://link.sprin

Great comment, this is the kind of discussions I wanna see on the internet. It looks like the author has made an update of his theory in 2011 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7 feel free to share any thought about it considering your very welcome expertise. unrelated but his other paper is interesting https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333616876_Do_psi-ontology_theorems_prove_that_the_wave_function_is_not_epistemic https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333616876_Do_psi-on...

raattgift 4y ago
What is motivating your interest in Schmelzer's papers? Or maybe, why are you trying to draw HN users' attention to them? Preprint version <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035>; interesting the spread of dates in the submission history. I don't have time to comment in any detail on this new link (or to peruse it, although I did read Appendix H.3 with some care), other than to say that it is a better read (and more professional) than the 1997 preprint you supplied earlier. I don't know Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, but I hope that was a good choice for the author. It does bother me though that the journal reproduces the latest preprint's typo "exteriour bundle" (superfluous u) in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Springer quality on a "transformative journal" which is trying to squeeze out of authors 2300 euros in article-processing charges... https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7 https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007... (for the published version)
- SemanticStrengh 4y ago
  > What is motivating your interest in Schmelzer's papers? Isn't it obvious.. I am looking for meaningful, potent advances in physics. I am looking for the code of the universe: a coherent unified theory of everything. I am looking for a concrete resolution of quantum gravity which current status is a gigantic failure. I am looking for a theory that advance cosmological modeling. For insights about the singularities or even their non existence (see frozen stars) and most importantly for an epistemic and causal interpretation of quantum mechanics and credible sub-quantum (including hidden variables) theories. While I have no problem finding significant progress in Medecine topics, in physics I have much less expertise and the technical issues or progress towards those issues are much less googlable. There is this meme that physics do not progress on its major open problems since the 90s and that is true to a big extent. One of the reason being that there has been potentially very significant advances, like e.g this concrete Lorentz theory of gravity but 1) I can't find them and 2) they do not receive attention by the community, therefore the community and those theories do not progress.
  - raattgift 4y ago
    I don't think I can usefully respond to that. You're interested in Schmelzer's papers. The author has a colourful website <https://ilja-schmelzer.de/ https://ilja-schmelzer.de/> on which he solicits comment and provides an email link. I think you should feel reasonably welcome to send a brief initial hello and a couple of questions about his work. Additionally, he might have some ideas on your point (1), beyond the reference sections of his various papers. He might also have some thoughts on (2), which could turn out to be related to what I see as a remarkable contrast between his 1997 preprint's Discussion section and the final paragraph before Appendix A in his 2012 publication.
    - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
      Thank u for the help :)

raattgift 4y ago

What is motivating your interest in Schmelzer's papers? Or maybe, why are you trying to draw HN users' attention to them? Preprint version <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035>; interesting the spread of dates in the submission history. I don't have time to comment in any detail on this new link (or to peruse it, although I did read Appendix H.3 with some care), other than to say that it is a better read (and more professional) than the 1997 preprint you supplied earlier. I don't know Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras, but I hope that was a good choice for the author. It does bother me though that the journal reproduces the latest preprint's typo "exteriour bundle" (superfluous u) in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the article. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of Springer quality on a "transformative journal" which is trying to squeeze out of authors 2300 euros in article-processing charges... https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00006-011-0303-7 https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007... (for the published version)

SemanticStrengh 4y ago
> What is motivating your interest in Schmelzer's papers? Isn't it obvious.. I am looking for meaningful, potent advances in physics. I am looking for the code of the universe: a coherent unified theory of everything. I am looking for a concrete resolution of quantum gravity which current status is a gigantic failure. I am looking for a theory that advance cosmological modeling. For insights about the singularities or even their non existence (see frozen stars) and most importantly for an epistemic and causal interpretation of quantum mechanics and credible sub-quantum (including hidden variables) theories. While I have no problem finding significant progress in Medecine topics, in physics I have much less expertise and the technical issues or progress towards those issues are much less googlable. There is this meme that physics do not progress on its major open problems since the 90s and that is true to a big extent. One of the reason being that there has been potentially very significant advances, like e.g this concrete Lorentz theory of gravity but 1) I can't find them and 2) they do not receive attention by the community, therefore the community and those theories do not progress.
- raattgift 4y ago
  I don't think I can usefully respond to that. You're interested in Schmelzer's papers. The author has a colourful website <https://ilja-schmelzer.de/ https://ilja-schmelzer.de/> on which he solicits comment and provides an email link. I think you should feel reasonably welcome to send a brief initial hello and a couple of questions about his work. Additionally, he might have some ideas on your point (1), beyond the reference sections of his various papers. He might also have some thoughts on (2), which could turn out to be related to what I see as a remarkable contrast between his 1997 preprint's Discussion section and the final paragraph before Appendix A in his 2012 publication.
  - SemanticStrengh 4y ago
    Thank u for the help :)