Recent content by Esim Can

Says the admin, wich does not know or did not looked at the paper. Lets make a deal, if you all want. After it is published and peer-reviewed in a journal, if this ever happens, i will post the work in this thread if you want. As far as i understood, peer-reviewed stuff can be shown here. But...

Look. I do NOT work on an unification theory. I don't even share the huge enthusiasm on unified theories. My model cannot do that. Parts of it try to look at the consequences in Gravitation, and how this could be interpreted, but these parts are speculative and are not part of the work.

@fresh_42 You are judging not on the base of knowledge as long as you do not have enough data of the knowledge of the person. As i said already, but you don't want to hear. I have shown the work already to established professors and THEY want me to publish it. One is even a theoretic Physicist...

It was not a journal, it was arXive. Reason? None. Standard email, the same, everyone becomes. (The same mail, which also that astronomer woman received) I had once a desk-reject by a journal in another field, and even a desk-reject was reasoned there, which was totally plausible and fine.

This is not a serious argument really. First the chances are not zero. Even if it is 8 billion people to 1, where is the point in supporting to categorically ignore people, because they have no university e-mail? We are not talking about academia here. We are talking about an institution, a...

@Dale I understand your point, but this is exactly why I distinguish between peer review and arXiv moderation. You describe how you would handle a journal submission, but arXiv is explicitly not a journal and its moderators do not evaluate scientific correctness or the depth of the literature...

Very important point, yes. In my case it predicts the normal order of the neutrino-masses, which will be soon tested i think. If the neutrino-mass-order are irregular, then my model is wrong. This is a falsifiable prediction. A very important constant is dependent on that in my model. But...

@Dale I appreciate your constructive suggestions. Perhaps we work a bit on a different field. I remember, that you work at medical physics? If true, there things are different and like you said, you are very right. In that field you need 50 or more references, because you build up on modern...

I would agree, if not two professors, who know the work and seen it would not agree on my view. One has even said, that it will be denied probably, because they don't like such ideas, no matter if the math is correct or not. And you forget, that arXiv is not a peer-review but a simple preprint...

@Stavros Kiri Thank you for your advice. Yes i did exactly as you said, because it is the reasonable way to go. Fortunately i now work with a professor emeritus. Even more helpful then his technical expertise on the field are his advice on the science politics. Perhaps interesting for other...

@ascendant First: I suggest to use Googles Gemini too. For programming i heard Kimi is good, but did not tested it myself. With your question, that ChatGPT makes mistakes, well it is true. I don't know, if you are still reading this, but if so, GPT 5 is much much better at physics and...

@Fra Yes, this is the problem of the geometric approach. Spacetime is the stage, on which everything has to happen from the geometric view, but itself is not static but observer dependent. Every try to view QM from a geometrical point of view risks to establish a static stage, a non...

@Fredrik your 'inferencial' view is really cool. I think we are looking at the same fundamental problem from two complementary angles. What you describe as a signal that 'the statespace itself that is used for encoding must be remodelled' is precisely the point. My argument is that the reason...

Yea, it was me, getting on a tangent here, because of the negative energy in the Klein-Gordon, then went to the relational ideas. Sorry for that.

Lets stay with TIQM and what i wrote before for a moment. My initial point was about the physical plausibility of the formalism we use. In the standard interpretation, the Born rule, |Psi|^2 is an axiom, we postulate it because it correctly predicts experimental outcomes. TIQM offers a physical...