Thanks to Reality_Check and other participants.

The discussion shown to me that in my theory distance between start point and results, such as QM etc, it too big. After some thinking of results of the discussion, I decided to write article with foundations of the theory. It contains only foundations, quantum mechanics etc is not considered at all in the article. Later, I presented the article with foundations of the theory on several seminars and one international conference on physics. I cannot say it caused lots of interest, but some discussions happened. After one of seminars, in following email discussion, was found quite significant error in equations, I fixed it later. As of now, I not know any error in the article.

The article, as far as I see, cannot be published in physics journals because it challenge realism. Editors from physics journals responds it should go to philosophy journals, editors from from philosophy journals write it is physics and should go to physics journals.

Link to article is: https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0157

Or, direct link to pdf document: https://vixra.org/pdf/1812.0157v5.pdf

What is in the article?

The article contains foundation of discussed earlier theory. It not contains any quantum mechanics, it only contains basis of theory.

In the article, I propose following model:

1. Time and dynamic is absent on fundamental level. No any motion, no energy, nothing related to time and dynamic on fundamental level

2. On fundamental level there is Euclidean space, with al least 4 dimensions. (And yes, I know about impossibility to derive hypersurface with Lorentz metric in Euclidean space. There is solution for the theory)

3. All dimensions are equal, there is no preferred direction.

4. Reiterating that was written before – time and dynamic on fundamental level is absent. Completely. No anything like time dimensions etc.

5. There is some field or field on fundamental level. The field(s) are defined at each point of fundamental space and have values belonging to set of real numbers (scalar field). (Scalar fields, described in textbooks for QFT, have different properties than these fields, so statement about insufficient degrees of freedom is not applicable here. But lets put it aside of the discussion) There is no time or dynamics. Thereby, the fields also have no dynamics. It also means full determinism. I will call these fields fundamental ones. I suppose that the fundamental fields are smooth and are described by certain partial differential equations. Each of the fundamental fields is independent of other fundamental fields. This means that there are no other fields in the equations describing any fundamental field.

6. Quite obviously, it is not possible to add observer to the model in traditional way. Observer always requires time for its existence. Absence of time means it is necessary to add something else to add observers. Instead of time dimension, I use space dimension. Details are in article. All space dimensions, as I already write, are equal, no preferred direction. Observer is able to observe changes because I postulate that changes on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space can lead to appearance of observer. [These is hardest of understanding point of the model].

7. Because observer appear as result of changes of field(s) on consecutive 3-d hyperplanes in fundamental space (I reiterate, there is no changes in fundamental space, But state of projections of fundamental field(s) on consecutive hyperplanes can change), observer is not exists objectively. And even more, Universe is not exists objectively. It exists only when there is some observer which observe it. Without observer, spacetime in the model is just mathematical abstraction.

So, I propose subjective idealism in foundation of my theory. Fundamental space with defined on the space field(s) exists objectively. But, because observer cannot exists without time and dynamic, the space and fields exists in quite nontraditional way, without any ability for direct observation. Their presence can be verified only indirectly, based on how well the theory fit to observations.

As one can notice, there is no relativism at the model. There is no aether at the model. There is no motion at the model. There is no gravity at the model.

What I claim as done in the article in scope of the theory:

1. Derived anthropic principle. Yes, derived, not postulated

2. Derived principle of causality

3. Derived equations of special relativity

4. Derived principle of locality

5. Found what is gravity

6. Derived equations of general relativity. And I derived in in such way, that there is clear explanation why gravity part is absent in tensor of energy-mass.

And all above done on model without time, without dynamic, without principle of locality, without gravity.

So, I remove lots of phenomena from list of fundamental ones.

The claims, as it can be seen, are quite big. I am interesting in testing the theory, test are the results correctly derived, are any obvious weaknesses.

Thanks to moderators for allowing to open the thread.