The Birth of a Theory  

Table comparing the basic forces within today’s paradigm (left) and according to Forces by Proxy (right) Force arrows are placed to indicate the source of the force as a visual aid.

For a better view of this table in a separate window, click here

The Birth of a Theory - Jørgen Karlsen interviewed by Trond Erik Hillestad.

Q: What’s your motivation for developing such a vast theory?

The scope was not so big in he beginning. It started as a play with models which could explain gravity and perhaps quantum mechanics. On my third serious attempt for such a unifying model, a lot of other problems fell neatly into place when I got the basic definition of the K particle right. From there on, motivation was not an issue.

Q: Are you bluntly denying the existence of any attractive forces in the universe?

Yes, my model has no room for direct attractive forces, it seems. However, forces by proxy is a hypothesis, so I’m not denying anything until the model is proven to be correct. But there is hardly anything in nature which indicates that there are any direct attractive forces – the mediators for such forces are all postulated phantoms.

Q: But your K particle is also a postulated phantom with strange properties …

 Postulated – yes. But strange – not really. It performs all basic forces either by directional transfer of momentum and random scattering, or if the K emission is controlled as well, the corresponding vacuum effect can get really strong. This is way easier to accept than some postulated field that has attractive properties. People just don’t realize what an anomaly that is, because they observe the “attractive” force over and over again.

Q: Einstein’s general theory of relativity is one of the best proven theories in modern physics. Yet you claim that space has no curvature?

The mathematical formulation of Einstein’s theory is well proven within the limits for our testing. But this does not mean that his interpretation of it is correct. To allow for the K particle, the curvature of space must be interpreted as K flux differences, where the curvature corresponds to differences in K pressure. Space is probably straight as a ruler, unless you define the K flux as a property of space itself.

Q: Most physicists seem to favour string theory as the candidate for the unifying theory. Clearly you don’t. Why?

String theory’s postulate of 11 dimensions makes my postulates extremely modest in comparison. My theory will – if proven correct – bring physics back to the world of common sense, while string theory seems to bring it to a realm of super-calculators and mathematical obscurity. String theorists seem very content with building a consistent mathematical system of unprecedented complexity. Ptolemy introduced epicycles to explain the movement of the planets. The math worked out nicely – and for sure it would have worked perfectly with today’s computers – but this did not mean that the concept of a geocentric system was correct.

Q: So you’re no good at math, and don’t like theories you don’t understand?

Hmm – thanks! I was doing As in math at university, but you have a point. Actually my dismay with obscure theories was a major reason why I did not pursue a career as a physicist. During my graduate studies, I once asked the professor teaching quantum mechanics what the physical interpretation of the math for a particular problem was. He shrugged his shoulders, and said this was the proven way to calculate such a problem, and the math was just the tool. He refused to give me any vision of how it really worked. For me who has always used a method of visualising the mathematical properties of a problem, this approach was frustrating. I can visualise several functions simultaneously, and optimise them, but here I was deprived of my main tool of problem solving, and instead offered a journey into obscurity.

Q: But you admit that your postulates are rather far fetched?

Yes and no. How mainstream can you go, and still expect that physicists have overlooked the solution since quantum mechanics entered the stage in 1925. If there is a unifying theory, I think my postulates are more modest than anyone would expect from such a theory. I just add one simple particle to the universe, and deduct a handful of basic properties for it, and some corresponding properties in elementary particles. All the rest are deducted submodels with a variable degree of likelihood for being correct. The reason for presenting a complete set of submodels like this, is that they all came as logical consequences when I started to scrutinise the theory, and many of the submodels have an extreme potency in explaining anomalies in physics.

Q: Gravity as a particle pressure from outside is not a new idea, is it?

True. But the known models for gravity as a particle pressure had one major flaw, they could not present a good explanation for how other particles could travel in a dense cloud of these particles which constituted the gravitational pressure. It was my first major quest to deduct what properties a particle must have to comply with the laws of motion.

Q: The K flux fills all elementary particles with energy. Isn’t that the same as the Higgs particle does?

The existence of an energy-giving particle has been postulated by Higgs and others. The postulate that Ks fill all elementary particles with energy, started with analysing particles without proper mass, like photons, saying that they exchange energy with the K flux with the same rate as their frequency f (or it seems to end up with    2f, actually.) Then it was generalised to concern all particles. An electron will exchange energy with Ks more than 1020 times per second. This exact frequency of interaction is unique for our theory. And it makes a huge difference in how you can perceive different phenomena.  

Q: What about the Big Bang?

I never liked all the fancy postulates of the big bang story. Probably it is science fiction, whether I’m right or wrong. But in the universe I’ve deducted, there is no room for the big bang. And black holes? That’s an itchy one. I “believed” in black holes till my model of galaxies forced me to think otherwise (if you suspect that I’m not much of a believer, you’re right). Stephen Hawking had to reinvent black holes to explain why they emit more energy than they attract – or at best they are energy neutral. So the rationale of black holes is not what it used to be.

Q: You don’t work as a scientist today, do you?

No. I went straight from studies to running my own business. I have started about 10 companies, half of them in Norway, the rest abroad. Physics was something I nurtured as a hobby, especially on long flights. Until I got within shooting range of the unifying theory, that is. Even though I’m sure my report will have some flaws, it should be evident that this is not something I’ve scrambled together as a part timer.  

Q: One cannot really say that you have focused your business efforts?

No, I have rather gotten into whatever I have considered an interesting challenge, from developing snowboards with enhanced dynamics due to a 3D base surface based on my own patents, to mechanical engineering, to running the R&D department for a small pharmaceutical company etc. Even though I like to apply theoretical knowledge, I usually follow a practical approach. If things don’t make sense, it is usually a good idea to look into the premises once again.

Q: Why go through all these efforts, with the risk of becoming the laughing stock of the year?

Perhaps this is the key to success – that I’m in a position where my career and reputation is not at stake. But I’m also used to succeed as an outsider. My experience has taught me that most experts think and act in clusters, and rarely manage to go far beyond the paradigms of their time.

 (Trond Erik Hillestad is editor of the Norwegian journal ”Astronomi”).

"The greatest challenge in science today, is to find a model that unifies the theory of gravitation with the theories of the other fundamental forces", says Jørgen Karlsen.

Do you have any comments? Click HERE 

You are currently on page: The Birth of a Theory

Previous page: Last Remarks           Next page: