Einstein’s lambda versus my epistemologically different worlds

“A Chinese saying is: ‘Talent hits the target that everybody else misses.
Genius hits the target that nobody else sees’.”
(Unzicker 2015, p. 43)

In this short article, I will investigate Einstein’s lambda (Λ) following Unzicker’s book 2015. I will shortly show that Einstein’s Λ has nothing to do with my EDWs.[1] On the contrary, Einstein elaborated his Λ within the unicorn world (Universe/world) under the pressure of quantum mechanics (who believed it was incomplete –Einstein’s et al. article 1935). As we already know from previous works, all the interpretations of quantum mechanics were wrong exactly because had been constructed within the same wrong framework, the unicorn world. Even some Unzicker’s ideas are quite exaggerated.[2] I will investigate several paragraphs/ideas from this book (some specialists can investigate more ideas and concepts).

Even the title of the first chapter is exaggerated: “The blind spot of physics why Einstein’s best idea remains unknown to this day”. No, it was not Einstein’s best idea: Unzicker recognized, later in his book, that Einstein did not succeeded to construct correctly his Λ (lambda). Obviously, Einstein had worked, his entire life, within the unicorn world, therefore, there would had been impossible to elaborate a correct theory, idea, concept that fits with “reality” (i.e., with the EDWs). Even his Λ (just an attempt within the unicorn world) could not be a correct notion/idea.

Quoting other authors form the past (for instance Dicke), Unzicker indicates that Einstein’s theory would involve the variable of the speed of light.[3] Unzicker also shows that this idea is related to Mach’s idea (elaborated later by Dicke) that gravity is not related, ontologically speaking, to the relative spatiotemporal framework, but to the “masses” of all planets in the Solar System and the entire universe.

Einstein had previously obtained the same incorrect value with his variable speed of light theory, because in 1911 he had assumed that the variability originated from a variable lapse of time only. He did not realize that length scales were also shortened in the gravitational field. The discrepancy between the wrongly calculated 0.85 arc-seconds and the correct (double) value of 1.7 arc-seconds was always considered by Einstein as experimentum crucis deciding between the two mathematical versions that he had published in 1913 and 1915. (Unzicker, p. 12)

From my viewpoint, there is no spacetime at all (spacetime cannot have any ontology), and indeed for explaining “gravity” (no ontology), we have to use the EDWs perspective. As I indicated in my works (see our book 2016, but also my PhD thesis 2007), some EDWs like macro-EW and micro-EW do not have any ontology as “world”[4]; the macro/micro-EW is a label for all the macro/micro-entities which really exist (have their own ED ontology). Also, the interactions between macro/micro-entities do not have ontology; we can talk about these interactions only when the macro/micro-entities are involved in these interactions.

In 1957, Dicke showed that the speed of light could varies. (Unzicker, p. 12) Essentially, Dicke considers that, because of the “variable speed of light”, the change in color could be caused by gravitation which affects the wavelength of the light which can observe. (p. 16) We are almost in my EDWs: gravitation does not even exist, graviton is a pseudo-notion invented and by some physicists (accepted by majority of them until I have published my article in Synthese 2005). Gravity is the correspondences between the macro-EW, the micro-EW and the field-EW, but as I emphasized many times in my works, any correspondence does not have an ontological status. Therefore, gravity does not even exist (no ontology). However, the falling apple on Earth is not an illusion, it is a real phenomena explained through correspondences between the macro-entities (the macro-EW) and the curved electromagnetic field (since spacetime could not even exist). The apple, the Earth and the electromagnetic field really exist, the motion of apple (and Earth) is a real property of that apple in that moment. Gravity is not “quantum gravity” (a wrong notion); there is only the curved electromagnetic field (not curved spacetime) but also the macro-entities and the correspondences between ED entities. Quantum gravity is a pseudo-notion which cnnot have any ontology but it can be explained only through my EDWs.

Unzicker (pp. 12-13): Even with variable speed of light, Einstein got incorrect value for deflection of light by Sun (0.85 arc-seconds instead of 1,7 arc-seconds) because he attributed this variability to time but not space. “He did not realize that length scales were also shortened in the gravitational field.” In 1957, Dicke indicated that the correct value of deflection involves the variable of speed light. (Unzicker, p. 13) Moreover, Dicke believed that the expansion of universe is an illusion do to the variability of light speed. (Unzicker, p. 16) Such mathematical notions are usually constructed within the mathematical framework and verified by experiments. As I wrote in the past, all mathematics is just abstract domain with some empirical applications.[5]

In my works (2016), I indicated that dark matter and dark energy could not even exist: many cosmological processes can be explained only through correspondences between the EDWs (like macro-EW, micro-EW, field-EW and mega-EW). I explained “dark matter” only through the correspondences between galaxies (empty notion) from the macro-EW (where are the planets and their relationships) and certain mega-entities (mega-EW). Also, I explained “dark energy” in two ways: (1) either there are certain processes in the mega-EW (or an EDW) or (2) there is are the correspondences (no ontologies) between the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), the microparticles (the micro-EW) and the planets/galaxies (the macro-EW) (see my previous works). In the second alternative, I do not need any EDW (like the mega-EW), but the explanation is given by correspondences (exactly as I explained the quantum nonlocality/entanglement through the correspondence between the two microparticles and the corresponding electromagnetic wave; such correspondences do not have any ontology!).[6] Unzicker writes that according to Einstein, the speed of light depends on the distribution of the “surrounding masses” (p. 18), but Unzicker relates this idea to Mach’s idea. Obviously, both Mach and Einstein missed the EDWs.

Unzicker emaphasizes that spacetime is a pseudo-notion (p. 27). In 2016, I wrote that spacetime could not even exist.[7] Unzicker writes about the “mysterious dual nature of mass” and Einstein’s great principle of equivalence (general relativity) between

• acceleration and gravity
• inertial mass and gravitational mass. (p. 44)

We can talk about “mass” of an entity only if there are at least two entities which interact. Otherwise, that entity (any entity) does not even exist. Also, we explain “gravity” only through the correspondences between the ED entities but, I emphasize again, gravity has no ontology. Then what do exist when an apple falls on the Earth? In the macro-EW, there is the apple and the Earth; the motion of the apple toward the Earth (and vice-versa) is explained through the masses of these macro-entities and the “nothing” (no ontology) between these entities. This “nothing” corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field (the field-EW). Obviously, mass is not the same thing with gravity[8]: mass is explained through the interactions between two entities from the same EW; gravity through the correspondence between the ED entities.[9] Essentially, Mach relates “the laws of nature” to the relative motion of masses, in contrast, Einstein relates “laws” to the mathematical “reference frames”! (Unzicker, p. 49) That is, Einstein’s equivalence principle (and the relativity of spacetime from special relativity) is constructed within a mathematical framework, Mach relates the acceleration to the masses.[10] Mach was closer to my EDWs than Einstein…

According to Einstein, the speed of light depends on the position, but depending on the distribution of masses, Dicke believes this speed changes over time in relationship to the chance of masses. (p. 104) Also Dicke misses my EDWs. Dirac noticed that the ratio of the sizes of universe (in its extension) and the size of a proton are both related to 10-15., a “highly remarkable coincidence”. (Unzicker, p. 109-10) From my viewpoint, this coincidence is explained by the correspondences between these three EDWs: field, micro and macro.[11]

The radical simplicity of Dicke’s model is remarkable; in conventional cosmology (which we will take a look at in Chapter 12) the speed of light and the expansion rate are two different things, an assumption that has led to considerable confusion. Dicke cut the Gordian knot: the speed of expansion is the speed of light. (p. 120)

Amazing, within my EDWs perspective, I elaborated a similar (not exactly) idea through the correspondences between the electromagnetic field (the field-EW), the microentities (the micro-EW) and the planets/galaxies (the macro-EW). However, I cannot be accused of plagiarism since Dicke elaborated his idea within the unicorn world. More correctly, the Gordian knot would be:  “the speed of expansion corresponds to the speed of light”. If the galaxies expand, the planets (the macro-EW) and these expansion only correspond to the electromagnetic field (the field-EW). Because there are ED entities, the planets/galaxies and light (both waves and photons, i.e., two EDWs) have different speeds of motion (even if, the electromagnetic waves and photons have the same speed in vacuum just because these ED entities do not have masses). Unzicker dedicates many chapters to Mach, Einstein, Dirac and Dick’s ideas but he noticed that none was right, none of their ideas were correct/complete. Obviously, even if Unzicker did not mention, the mistake of all these four great physicists (as all thinkers until me) had been the unicorn world framework.

Chapter 11 of Unzicker’s book is “Why we need to question the notions of space and time”.[12] My answer is: we do not need spacetime because of the EDWs. In Chapter 12, Unzicker writes about Einstein’s “lambda” cosmological constant. As I have already mentioned, Einstein’s lambda has nothing to do with my own lambda (my article and chapter published in 2024). Nevertheless, Unzicker correctly emphasizes “Einstein had indeed unfortunately forgotten about his own idea of 1911, or rather, he had overlooked its cosmological relevance.” (p. 142) Even if “the cosmological constant Λ fell into oblivion before it was brought up [153] again in 1998—ironically, as a justification for ‘dark energy’” (idem), Einstein’s lambda and my lambda are totally different notions because everybody until me had been working within the unicorn world/Universe (the largest WRONG framework of the human thinking until me…).

Conclusion
In his “Outlook”, Unzicker considers that the “contemporary physics is in the midst of a crisis”. (p. 163) See also Sabine Hossenfelder’s or Chaitin clips about the “actual crisis” in Physics (I mentioned some of them below in “Bibliography”). Some people officially declare that there have been no revolution, no new paradigm, no new great ideas in Physics in the last 50 years (or so). Chiatin, for instance, declares that nothing has changed in quantum mechanics since 1930-40. Nothing! In a clip, Penrose indicates that all the interpretation of quantum mechanics have been wrong (anyway, Penrose have not worked within the EDWs perspective). So, today many physicists indicate that Physics is in a great crisis. It seems as if many of them know about my EDWs, but almost nobody mention my name. Why? Obviously, the US-academic-Mafia has interdicted my name to be quoted, me to be invited to online conferences, etc.

If so many people recognized this “crisis”, I can ask: many people (physicists, cognitive neuroscientists and philosophers) have plagiarized my ideas, then why so many scientists think that Physics is in crisis? They do not know about my EDW or the works of those who have plagiarized my ideas? Quite impossible for some specialists in Physics not to know something about the works of some “great” physicists (some of them are in my DARK list). In reality, everybody (except those who have plagiarized my ideas) has been waiting somebody else to recognized, officially, my name and my discovery (the greatest in the history of human thinking. Except a few persons, nobody has recognized, officially, my work yet because of the interdiction imposed by the “US-Deep state” in the international and national academic environment (US, EU and other countries). Almost nobody has helped me during my career; on the contrary, many (national and international) bastards have created me great problems in the last 20 years.[13] Nevertheless, it seems that in the last months, the Revolution has already started in academic environment at the “underground level”. I believe that in just few months, everybody will recognize/talk/write officially about my name and my discovery, the EDWs. I end this article with Einstein’s words (from Unzicker, p. 150:

A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is – in my opinion – the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Albert Einstein)

Bibliography
Chaitin Gregory (2024), “The Rise and Fall of Academia”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEuav8G6sY
Chaitin Gregory (2024), “No Scientific Innovation Since the 1920s…”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guQIkV6yCik
Hossenfelder Sabine (2024), “The crisis in physics is real: Science is failing”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQVF0Yu7X24
Hossenfelder Sabine (2024), “The Crisis in Cosmology Just Got So Much Worse”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKhDyj8XXLA
Gabriel Vacariu – see my webpage

[1] There have been some Americans who re-interpreted Einstein’s lambda within a framework quite similar to my EDWs (some of them are already in my DARK list…).

[2] It seems, as if, Unzicker knew about my EDWs before writing this book. Even the sub-title “How we overlook the best idea of 20^th century” is an exaggeration which send implicitly to my EDWs. In my short article “exaggeration” involves, at least implicitly, the fact that Unzicker wrote this book knowing about my EDWs.

[3] But neither Eddington nor Dirac saw the link to Einstein’s theory of variable speed of light. It took until 1957, two years after Einstein’s death, until Robert Dicke, an astrophysicist from Princeton, eventually solved the puzzle. Dicke

later became famous for his role in the discovery of the cosmic microwave background, and only bad luck prevented him from winning the Nobel Prize. Dicke, who had studied Ernst Mach, saw the power of Einstein’s formula – and improved it in one crucial respect.” (Unzicker 2015, p. 11) Unzicker indicates that Dicke abandoned his idea. From my viewpoint, as Einstein, Dicke had worked within the unicorn world, therefore he could not explain correctly gravity, for instance.

[4] There are some EDWs which exist (each in itself) as an entity: for instance, the mind-EW (it is) or the field-EW (the entire “Cosmos”). Because the electromagnetic field is in the entire “Cosmos” (a pseudo-notion), there would be an ontological contradiction to assume the existence of spacetime. (see our work 2016)

[5] “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” (Einstein)

[6] “Modern cosmology has good reason to deal with that idea of Einstein’s. The past decades were an era of fantastic observations, but at the same time many of them were poorly understood. This lack of understanding has led to a complicated cosmological model based on a series of ad hoc assumptions. One prominent example is the ‘accelerated expansion’ of the universe, for which the Nobel Prize was awarded in 2011. The cause of the acceleration is usually attributed to an unknown substance called ‘dark energy’. Too bad that the cause of the expansion itself is unknown, but this is generally brushed aside.” (Unzicker, p. 17) In fact, everybody had been working within the unicorn world until I discovered the EDWs in 2002… Many people have started to plagiarize my ideas since 2006 just because I was lucky my article at Synthese (USA) to be published in November 2005! So, those people did not have time to publish similar ideas to my ideas in 2005.

[7] Unzicker: Following Minkovski, Einstein uses pure mathematics in searching for the “unified field theory”. (p. 27) Even if Einstein tried to construct this theory, he did not succeeded. In fact, he could not succeeded since he was working within the unicorn world. Einstein always struggled to bring his calculations back to phenomenology. Consider, for example, the last section of his 1930 paper,[18] where he emphasized that calculating the masses of the electron and the proton ought to be the next step – a puzzle that remains unsolved to this day.” (Unzicker, p. 27) From my viewpoint, the masses of the microparticles correspond to different concentrations of the same electromagnetic field, exactly as the mass of a planet (the macro-EW) corresponds to (1) the masses of its corresponding microparticles (the micro-EW) and (2) the concentrations of the electromagnetic field/waves (the field-EW). “However, the unified field theory was not the right way. This is not easy for me to admit, because the Einstein-Cartan theory fascinated me for a long time. Nevertheless, this search into formal constructions not only led to very little progress, as most people would agree, but also prevented Einstein’s more direct, physical ideas from developing.” (Unzicker, p. 28) Again, Einstein had no idea about the EDWs; he had worked only within the unicorn world, even with this “unified field theory”, a reduction approach of “everything” to the electromagnetic field. Again, the electromagnetic field is an EW, but it is not the only EW. We cannot talk about gravity within the field-EW since the electromagnetic field/waves (and the photons) do not have masses. We can talk about mass only when there are at least two macro or micro-entities. If there would be a single macro-entity (for instance), that entity would not even exist since it would not interact with something and without such interaction, the material entity would not exist. At page 42 (Unzicker) a subtitle: “Mass is congealed energy”. This title mirrors, indirectly, my EDWs. The correct statement would be: “Mass corresponds to energy”. As I have published in the past, in Einstein’s equation E = mc2, the sign = has to be replaced with “correspondence”.

[8] “Mass is a concept that can be defined in purely kinematic terms… The term ‘mass’ makes sense on its own: it can be defined without resorting to gravity. But it is utterly surprising that the same concept, mass, is also responsible for a type of force, the gravitational force.” (pp. 47-8)

[9] “Earlier than Einstein, Mach had intuitively recognized that the laws of dynamics could depend only on the motion of masses relative to each other. In contrast to Newton, he was convinced that the concept of absolute space did not make sense – because it was unobservable as a matter of principle. Several years before Einstein, Mach had generalized Galileo’s discovery – that the laws of nature are independent of motion – to accelerated motion. This was a powerful act of abstraction that challenged Newton’s authority. In 1883, Mach reduced Newton‘s ‘absolute’ space to absurdity, more clearly than Einstein did.” (Unzicker, p. 45) As I emphasized in the past, Einstein’s great mistake was that, after elaborating the special relativity, he did not think spacetime did not even exist. As somebody wrote: Einstein pushed spacetime out through the door (special relativity), but spacetime re-entered in the room through the window (general relativity). Unzicker, p. 47: before Einstein, Mach related distant planets with inertial properties of masses and, in this way, Mach anticipated the equivalence principle (general relativity). “The acceleration of a falling apple would not only be determined by Newton’s (supposedly) universal gravitational constant, but also by the distribution of masses throughout the universe!” (p. 47) Obviously, it is about the distribution of masses in the entire “universe”, but we have to introduce also the curved nothing which corresponds to the curved electromagnetic field.

[10] I related this idea to an important notion in physics: “entropy”. I wrote about entropy in my previous works (2017, 2019, etc.) I repeat the main idea: within the EDWs perspective, entropy is explained through correspondence (as many very important notions from sciences and philosophy). Because the electromagnetic field (the field-EW) has spread in all directions 300,00o years after the Big Bang, the microparticles correspond to these electromagnetic waves in all directions. Therefore, the microparticles have the “tendency” (through correspondence) to spread in all directions, i.e., “disorder” (entropy). Nevertheless, the microparticles correspond to the planets (the macro-EW) and because of these correspondences, the microparticles have been pushed together (any huge amalgam of microparticles corresponds to a planet, i.e., “order”). So notions like order and disorder have to be explained within the EDWs perspective. There is no one Universe/world, therefore, we cannot have an absolute explanation for order and disorder.

[11] “To round off the value of Dirac’s observation, however, one should mention that it is in complete harmony with Ernst Mach’s thoughts on gravity, though Dirac apparently never dealt with Mach.[123] But probably he was convinced as well that that the relation c2/G ≈ Mu/Ru had a meaning. The fact that Dirac considered the size and the mass of the universe, the two quantities that Mach also related to the origin of gravity, constitutes another piece in this fascinating puzzle.” (p. 112) “Dirac would have paved the way for a possible unification of physics with his own observations that, as he said himself, allow one to assume “a deep connection between cosmology and atomic physics’.” (p. 113) In reality, this puzzle (relation c2/G ≈ Mu/Ru) is solved through my EDWs and its main notion (which it does not have any ontology): the correspondences between ED entities and their interactions. “Everyone who is familiar with the basics of theoretical physics knows that its two main pillars, quantum mechanics and general relativity, are incompatible. Admittedly, this lack of unification is the biggest problem, the failure to synthesize the grand with the small, the macrocosm with the microcosm.” (p. 113) There are EDWs and obviously the unification of the general relativity with quantum mechanics is totally wrong. Moreover, in quantum mechanics, there are at least two EDWs. These EDWs corresponds to other EDWs, but there is no unification between the macro and the micro. “Dirac’s observation was also the reason why, after years of work, I turned away from the Einstein-Cartan theory of teleparallelism[125] of 1930. As enticing as their ingenious geometrical unification of electricity and gravity may appear on a formal level it certainly cannot explain the quantitative difference of the two forces.” (p.113) Einstein-Cartan parallelism has nothing to do with my EDWs. (There are some persons who re-interpreted Einstein’s teleparallelism in a very similar way to my EDWs. Some of these authors are already in my dark list, their interpretation being totally wrong since Einstein had no idea about the EDWs.) Anyway, in 1968, Dirac indicates that physicists construct wrong models in explaining the laws of nature, but these laws (their quantities considered “constants of nature”) could change over time and exactly these changes demolish these models. (p. 117) As I indicated since 2005 until today, there are no laws of EDWs; there are only these ED entities and their interactions. Therefore, neither “laws”, no spacetime really exist. I repeat: the explanations of many ED phenomena depend on different “correspondences” without any ontology! For Dicke, both the speed of light and the “spatial scales” can be variable in time and the expansion of universe could be an illusion.

[12] I do not accuse Unzicker of plagiarizing my idea rejecting spacetime: however, I mention that I published my book about the impossibility of the existence of spacetime in 2016, but in my previous works, I strongly emphasized that what really exist (have ED ontologies) are the ED entities and their interactions. In this context, since the electromagnetic field covers the entire “cosmos”, the existence of spacetime would be a strong ontological contradiction since there cannot be two entities in the same location at the same moment. Nevertheless, in Unzicker’s book, there are some ideas very similar to my ideas: for instance, It is appealing that this acceleration appears just where the observational anomalies related to the phenomenon of ‘Dark Matter’ show up, particularly at the edges of galaxies.” (p. 130) or “The spatial change of the speed of light (more precisely, the gradient of ¼ c2) determines the local gravitational acceleration, but if we take Dirac’s reference to elementary particles seriously, it could also be that this acceleration is a manifestation of other forces, in this case, the nuclear one. Here, the nuclear force would turn out to be an unrecognized form of gravitation.” (p. 174) “It may sound overbearing to call the possibly greatest achievements of physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics unsuitable constructs. And it is wrong in the sense that the merit of these theories consists precisely in reducing a variety of natural phenomena to a few simple concepts. Two constants, h and c, in this sense, are a very modest toolbox. But, if we appreciate the progress up to this point, we cannot overlook the natural consequence: If c and h prove themselves obsolete, they would prompt an even deeper understanding. Further, this would lead to new concepts that are more suitable for a fundamental description of nature than space and time. Howsoever, one cannot deny that h and c represent a complication of the laws of nature. Without quantum mechanics and relativity, physics was simpler—albeit wrong. A commonplace in today’s point of view is that a unified theory of physics requires relativity and quantum mechanics to be linked, even though both theories are conceptually and formally alien to each other. However, the problem may be ill posed: Presumably, it is not a unification that is needed but a reconstruction that replaces the concepts of space and time by more adequate ones.” (p. 136) These statements seems to be elaborated by somebody who has been aware about my EDWs perspective. Anyway, I have elaborated quite similar ideas, but within the EDWs perspective in my works. The reconstruction mentioned by the author means the EDWs perspective, no more. A sub-title: “An unknown world of new concepts”; or “it is likely that Newtonian physics of space and time have to be overturned even more thoroughly than was possible for Einstein to do. The mystery of quantum theory is often illustrated with the ‘dualism’ of waves and particles, a concept developed by Niels Bohr. In fact, it is amazing that some experiments, such as electron diffraction in crystals, clearly speak for the wave nature of matter, and in certain others, such as the photoelectric effect (Einstein won the Nobel Prize for it), light behaves like a particle. A flood of publications have emerged that debate the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on this wave–particle dualism. But waves and particles are probably simply ill-defined terms that touch on our traditional idea of space and time.”  (p. 137) It seems these statements refer, at least indirectly or “accidentally”, to my EDWs…

[13] „Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” (Einstein)