If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).

Current Essay Contest

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

Previous Contests

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013 *

* Contest closed to Entries. Submit Community Votes by August 7, 2013; Public Votes by October 31, 2013.*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

FQXi FORUM

April 19, 2014

CATEGORY:
What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest
[back]

TOPIC: How to create an absolute vacuum and a perfectly isolated system by Constantin Zaharia Leshan [refresh]

TOPIC: How to create an absolute vacuum and a perfectly isolated system by Constantin Zaharia Leshan [refresh]

According to modern scientific knowledge, an absolute vacuum is not obtainable. Quantum theory sets limits for the best possible quality of vacuum, predicting that no volume of space can be perfectly empty. In spite of the fact that the technology of creation of “perfect vacuum” is fundamentally forbidden, I can prove it may ultimately be allowed, by physics. Paper shows how to create and detect the absolute vacuum (it is void of particles, radiation, neutrino, virtual particles, zero point fluctuations, and void of space-time!). Intuitively, a vacuum is what is left when all matter is removed from a region. It is shown that depending on the speed we remove the matter, we can obtain a Torricelli's vacuum or a Descartes' absolute vacuum. Since gravitation and neutrino cannot be shielded, there is no way to make a perfectly isolated system. The absolute vacuum allows us to shield even gravitation and neutrinos and teleport matter at distance 13 billions light years. There are testable consequences for the absolute vacuum theory.

Born in Ghindesti, Moldova, November 5, 1964. Leshan's research interests are hole teleportation, cosmology and particle physics.

I belive the hole teleportation idea is ingenious because even though it involves curving space like a black hole doesn't mean using enough energy to power New York for 20 years. In fact, for all intents and purposes, this system uses low levels of energy.

The beauty of this space curving is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. This system has great potential and sounds both reasonable and practical - sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules.

Think about it.

The beauty of this space curving is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. This system has great potential and sounds both reasonable and practical - sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules.

Think about it.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for support; I have some original ideas how to create the hole generator and obtain holes on the surface of solid films. But I need a laboratory and financial support. For example, there is need in two atomic (cesium) clocks in order to detect the source of holes.

Dear FQXi community,

I propose that each author of essay should review and check for consistency all FQXi essays. It would engage authors in critical logical analyses of essays and discussion. This information could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of each essay, in order to exclude fraud. Otherwise a swindler would obtain the FQXi prize. Imagine that one author have about 50 accomplices and friends. Then all its accomplices and friends vote for given author to increase its ratings. In such a way a swindler may have the best ratings and may obtain a FQXi prize.

The review of essay must answer the following questions:

Is the essay logic? Does a theory contain the logical errors?

Does an essay contain the new physical ideas? Does an essay have any scientific value?

My essay also needs a review; please check for logic and consistency my essay. I know about grammatical and random errors, but you search my essay for logical errors please. In turn, I'll check for logic and consistency all the FQXi essays published here.

Thank you for support; I have some original ideas how to create the hole generator and obtain holes on the surface of solid films. But I need a laboratory and financial support. For example, there is need in two atomic (cesium) clocks in order to detect the source of holes.

Dear FQXi community,

I propose that each author of essay should review and check for consistency all FQXi essays. It would engage authors in critical logical analyses of essays and discussion. This information could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of each essay, in order to exclude fraud. Otherwise a swindler would obtain the FQXi prize. Imagine that one author have about 50 accomplices and friends. Then all its accomplices and friends vote for given author to increase its ratings. In such a way a swindler may have the best ratings and may obtain a FQXi prize.

The review of essay must answer the following questions:

Is the essay logic? Does a theory contain the logical errors?

Does an essay contain the new physical ideas? Does an essay have any scientific value?

My essay also needs a review; please check for logic and consistency my essay. I know about grammatical and random errors, but you search my essay for logical errors please. In turn, I'll check for logic and consistency all the FQXi essays published here.

Hi Leshan ,

It's a beautiful extrapolation.

About the logic ,I beleive what the imaginaries are inserted like the rule of holes and vaccum thus the conclusion about the mass is not correct for me ,the mass ,the gravity needs a more basic cause .

The gravitation ,the mass is the effect of a cause ,a physical cause ,for me the rotations of quantum spheres .

Thus if the imaginaries are not correlated with the physicality thus the experiment and its theory needs limits to have logic results .

The idea is good in correlation with the Descartes and tori.vaccuum ,absolute .

What this experiment needs is the thermodynamic and a cause of the gravitation .I don't see an other solution than the rotating spheres .Now at this scale ,the holes for me are the lattices of the specific entanglement of quantum spheres ,and thus their geometry is different than in your extrapolation .I don't see others holes in stable models or experiments.The nature of this space between spheres is probably a balance and a necessity to rotate ,of course it's my interpretation .The gravitation ,the mass can appear due to these rotations thus .A spherical hole is different and in our imagination it seems to me .

With the thermodynamic ;the extrapolations are linked with the laws .

,could you tell me more about these vaccuums and holes please ?

Sincerely

Steve

It's a beautiful extrapolation.

About the logic ,I beleive what the imaginaries are inserted like the rule of holes and vaccum thus the conclusion about the mass is not correct for me ,the mass ,the gravity needs a more basic cause .

The gravitation ,the mass is the effect of a cause ,a physical cause ,for me the rotations of quantum spheres .

Thus if the imaginaries are not correlated with the physicality thus the experiment and its theory needs limits to have logic results .

The idea is good in correlation with the Descartes and tori.vaccuum ,absolute .

What this experiment needs is the thermodynamic and a cause of the gravitation .I don't see an other solution than the rotating spheres .Now at this scale ,the holes for me are the lattices of the specific entanglement of quantum spheres ,and thus their geometry is different than in your extrapolation .I don't see others holes in stable models or experiments.The nature of this space between spheres is probably a balance and a necessity to rotate ,of course it's my interpretation .The gravitation ,the mass can appear due to these rotations thus .A spherical hole is different and in our imagination it seems to me .

With the thermodynamic ;the extrapolations are linked with the laws .

,could you tell me more about these vaccuums and holes please ?

Sincerely

Steve

Hi Steave,

'could you tell me more about these vacuums and holes please'

To create an absolute vacuum (a hole in space-time) you must remove all the matter from a given volume very quickly (instantly). After that a hole appear for a very short time ~ 10^-24 s. The lifetime of holes is very short because holes are 'filled quickly by the environment.

To remove all matter from a given volume we can use some nuclear processes, for example the decay of free neutrons.

If the free neutron decays, it disappears instantly. Then you see the products of its decay - proton, electron and antineutrino, but you know nothing about these processes. Since we removed all matter (a neutron) from volume instantly, a hole in spacetime must appear for a short time 10^-24 s.

It is a theory that allows experimental verification; if the clocks placed near the neutron storage runs slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.

Best regards,

Constantin

'could you tell me more about these vacuums and holes please'

To create an absolute vacuum (a hole in space-time) you must remove all the matter from a given volume very quickly (instantly). After that a hole appear for a very short time ~ 10^-24 s. The lifetime of holes is very short because holes are 'filled quickly by the environment.

To remove all matter from a given volume we can use some nuclear processes, for example the decay of free neutrons.

If the free neutron decays, it disappears instantly. Then you see the products of its decay - proton, electron and antineutrino, but you know nothing about these processes. Since we removed all matter (a neutron) from volume instantly, a hole in spacetime must appear for a short time 10^-24 s.

It is a theory that allows experimental verification; if the clocks placed near the neutron storage runs slower, it will be the experimental proof for the hole theory.

Best regards,

Constantin

Hi dear Constantin,

Thanks .

Thus This short instant returns to its balance in fact ,it's very short that .

Difficult experiment I think .

If we apply variables, the pression or the temperature, in a finite volume ,it's probably more easy No ?

Steve

Thanks .

Thus This short instant returns to its balance in fact ,it's very short that .

Difficult experiment I think .

If we apply variables, the pression or the temperature, in a finite volume ,it's probably more easy No ?

Steve

Leshan,

“. Imagine a closed volume with a body inside. Then we envelope a body with absolute isolation. How you compare now the inertial and gravitational mass? You do not have access to this volume because it is an AVSOLUTE isolation, that shield all the fields including gravitation. It is equivalent to sending a body in another universe.

Since you cannot compare the inertial and gravitational mass, you cannot speak about violation of EP. ”

This is not a valid argument. Suppose I am “proving” the sum of the angles in a flat triangle is 245 degrees instead of 180, and someone finds the mistakes in my “proof” and writes it on a piece of paper. Just because I am closing my eyes every time I am attempting to read it, it does not mean the mistake is not real.

So what you need to do in your case is to include an experimentalist with its measuring tools inside your absolutely isolated region. The local observer should see a violation of the EP. If the region is not macroscopic, then we should still be able to see measurement consequences one way or another. Shielding gravity means shielding the gravitational charge which in effect no longer equals the inertial mass and you do get an EP violation.

About QCD, and QED, they are very similar: you have the same mathematical machinery, it is only that one is based on SU(3) while the other is based on U(1)XSU(2). They therefore come as a “package deal” if one is bad, so is the other. The only thing you can question for QCD is the SU(3), but we have solid experimental evidence for this.

“. Imagine a closed volume with a body inside. Then we envelope a body with absolute isolation. How you compare now the inertial and gravitational mass? You do not have access to this volume because it is an AVSOLUTE isolation, that shield all the fields including gravitation. It is equivalent to sending a body in another universe.

Since you cannot compare the inertial and gravitational mass, you cannot speak about violation of EP. ”

This is not a valid argument. Suppose I am “proving” the sum of the angles in a flat triangle is 245 degrees instead of 180, and someone finds the mistakes in my “proof” and writes it on a piece of paper. Just because I am closing my eyes every time I am attempting to read it, it does not mean the mistake is not real.

So what you need to do in your case is to include an experimentalist with its measuring tools inside your absolutely isolated region. The local observer should see a violation of the EP. If the region is not macroscopic, then we should still be able to see measurement consequences one way or another. Shielding gravity means shielding the gravitational charge which in effect no longer equals the inertial mass and you do get an EP violation.

About QCD, and QED, they are very similar: you have the same mathematical machinery, it is only that one is based on SU(3) while the other is based on U(1)XSU(2). They therefore come as a “package deal” if one is bad, so is the other. The only thing you can question for QCD is the SU(3), but we have solid experimental evidence for this.

I invite all readers to search for errors in my theory. Since hole vacuum theory allows gravity shielding, Florin Moldoveanu suspects the violation of Equivalence principle in my theory.

According to Wikipedia, the term 'gravitational shielding' refers to a hypothetical process of shielding an object from the influence of a gravitational field. Such processes, if they existed, would have...

view entire post

According to Wikipedia, the term 'gravitational shielding' refers to a hypothetical process of shielding an object from the influence of a gravitational field. Such processes, if they existed, would have...

view entire post

Dr. Gorda published his nervous post as a reply to my critique of his essay. Why all physicists are afraid of criticism?

'please, kindly demonstrate your statements with mathematical formulas'

No problems, I can demonstrate you my hole theory with mathematical formulas. But please pay attention at FQXi rules: Essay should be 'Accessible to a diverse, highly-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature. Thus FQXi ask to avoid formulas and special definitions. Therefore I strongly suggest you to withdraw your essay from this FQXi Essay Contest because the most part of your essay contain formulas and special definitions only. Your essay is very difficult for usual readers. Your essay violates the FQXi rules: the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author. Your essay do not differ substantially from your previously published paper.

It is the main cause why my essay contain two formulas only. The usual readers easy understand a simple logic without formulas. Do you think my essay must contain formulas and definitions only?

Now my hole theory of gravitation is under publication in peer reviewed journal. For your information, my hole theory of gravitation was verified by Soros foundation and some Universities. You are not able to find any error here. You can publish only notes like 'no mathematical formulas' The presence of mathematical formulas is not a proof that the theory is true. It is the main cause why you don't registered gravitational waves till now. Because your theory is a mathematical model mainly.

'please, kindly demonstrate your statements with mathematical formulas'

No problems, I can demonstrate you my hole theory with mathematical formulas. But please pay attention at FQXi rules: Essay should be 'Accessible to a diverse, highly-educated but non-specialist audience, aiming in the range between the level of Scientific American and a review article in Science or Nature. Thus FQXi ask to avoid formulas and special definitions. Therefore I strongly suggest you to withdraw your essay from this FQXi Essay Contest because the most part of your essay contain formulas and special definitions only. Your essay is very difficult for usual readers. Your essay violates the FQXi rules: the entry should differ substantially from any previously published piece by the author. Your essay do not differ substantially from your previously published paper.

It is the main cause why my essay contain two formulas only. The usual readers easy understand a simple logic without formulas. Do you think my essay must contain formulas and definitions only?

Now my hole theory of gravitation is under publication in peer reviewed journal. For your information, my hole theory of gravitation was verified by Soros foundation and some Universities. You are not able to find any error here. You can publish only notes like 'no mathematical formulas' The presence of mathematical formulas is not a proof that the theory is true. It is the main cause why you don't registered gravitational waves till now. Because your theory is a mathematical model mainly.

'There are not mathematical proofs on the statements of Mr. Leshan in is essay'

You see, Dr. Corda have found a sole note in my essay – 'no mathematical proofs'. Dr. Corda, the presence or absence of mathematics is not a proof that the theory is true or false. I can show you a lot of mathematical papers that are erroneous. For example the wormhole theory has a beautiful mathematics but I...

view entire post

You see, Dr. Corda have found a sole note in my essay – 'no mathematical proofs'. Dr. Corda, the presence or absence of mathematics is not a proof that the theory is true or false. I can show you a lot of mathematical papers that are erroneous. For example the wormhole theory has a beautiful mathematics but I...

view entire post

Dear Constantin Zaharia Leshan

I think Descartes is right. If we consider the Universe as Cosmic-matrix in fluidity, we may not able to create absolute vacuum as space is only the extension of matter in which there is embedded gravity that is tensor. Space cell cannot disappear in zero time and could be oscillation of clocks that is fluctuation of space cell.

With best regards,

Jayakar

I think Descartes is right. If we consider the Universe as Cosmic-matrix in fluidity, we may not able to create absolute vacuum as space is only the extension of matter in which there is embedded gravity that is tensor. Space cell cannot disappear in zero time and could be oscillation of clocks that is fluctuation of space cell.

With best regards,

Jayakar

Leshan,

You are "curing" the EP violation with something even worse, a violation of the speed of light. The teleportation argument looks like a rabbit out of a hat trick, and 1. it is not convincing (I did not see any concrete mechanism for how it would happen in your essay) and 2. it will violate a basic rule of relativity of not being able to transmit information faster than the speed of light. If your teleportation would happen slower than the speed of light, then you cannot outrun the gravitational waves resulting in an EP violation yet again.

PS: I see in ouf of your posts above: "The paper was rejected because 'bodies cannot move faster that light'. My theory allows faster than light teleportation of matter therefore all my papers are rejected by peer reviewed journals." This is a very valid answer from the journals, as all experiments so far had upheld this. The very first repeatable experiment where this will be proven false, will surely get the Nobel prize. But do not hold your breath for it, because it will never happen.

You are "curing" the EP violation with something even worse, a violation of the speed of light. The teleportation argument looks like a rabbit out of a hat trick, and 1. it is not convincing (I did not see any concrete mechanism for how it would happen in your essay) and 2. it will violate a basic rule of relativity of not being able to transmit information faster than the speed of light. If your teleportation would happen slower than the speed of light, then you cannot outrun the gravitational waves resulting in an EP violation yet again.

PS: I see in ouf of your posts above: "The paper was rejected because 'bodies cannot move faster that light'. My theory allows faster than light teleportation of matter therefore all my papers are rejected by peer reviewed journals." This is a very valid answer from the journals, as all experiments so far had upheld this. The very first repeatable experiment where this will be proven false, will surely get the Nobel prize. But do not hold your breath for it, because it will never happen.

Florin,

'You are "curing" the EP violation with something even worse, a violation of the speed of light'

1. OK, Florin, I can prove the absence of EP violation in my theory without using faster than light teleportation. If we create the closed hole surface, both internal and external observer see this hole surface only, but not teleportation. Therefore I do not need to involve...

view entire post

'You are "curing" the EP violation with something even worse, a violation of the speed of light'

1. OK, Florin, I can prove the absence of EP violation in my theory without using faster than light teleportation. If we create the closed hole surface, both internal and external observer see this hole surface only, but not teleportation. Therefore I do not need to involve...

view entire post

a) The closed hole surface exist a short time 10^-24s only. Quantum mechanics allows the fluctuation of mass/energy during that short time.

b) My gravity shielding devise does not create the effect of reducing the weight of an object because the hole surface free fall in a gravitational field. Do you have any questions?

(a) is irrelevant as long as the time is not zero.

(b) The sentence is unclear.

“I'll propose the teleportation experiments for LHC collider.”

Do you even know what the center of mass collision energy at LHC is? Why do you need this, why not use some less powerful accelerators? And why do you delude yourself of thinking your experiment has any remote chance to be accepted? LHC is a very serious and expensive business and you probably will have a better chance of being accepted as the first astronaut on a Mars mission than this.

“My hole teleportation has the same mechanism as Alcubierre Warp drive, it is a FTL motion of the bubble of space-time.”

Sorry to disappoint again, warp drives work only in Star Trek, but all time travel solutions of general relativity are ALL unphysical (and this is mathematically provable).

b) My gravity shielding devise does not create the effect of reducing the weight of an object because the hole surface free fall in a gravitational field. Do you have any questions?

(a) is irrelevant as long as the time is not zero.

(b) The sentence is unclear.

“I'll propose the teleportation experiments for LHC collider.”

Do you even know what the center of mass collision energy at LHC is? Why do you need this, why not use some less powerful accelerators? And why do you delude yourself of thinking your experiment has any remote chance to be accepted? LHC is a very serious and expensive business and you probably will have a better chance of being accepted as the first astronaut on a Mars mission than this.

“My hole teleportation has the same mechanism as Alcubierre Warp drive, it is a FTL motion of the bubble of space-time.”

Sorry to disappoint again, warp drives work only in Star Trek, but all time travel solutions of general relativity are ALL unphysical (and this is mathematically provable).

Florin

'is irrelevant as long as the time is not zero'

Virtual particles appear from nothing and disappear. Thus quantum mechanics allow the fluctuation of mass/energy during a short time. For a very short time, the uncertainty in the energy can be large. The Closed hole surface is the same fluctuation of mass during a very short time. Do virtual particles violate the Equivalence...

view entire post

'is irrelevant as long as the time is not zero'

Virtual particles appear from nothing and disappear. Thus quantum mechanics allow the fluctuation of mass/energy during a short time. For a very short time, the uncertainty in the energy can be large. The Closed hole surface is the same fluctuation of mass during a very short time. Do virtual particles violate the Equivalence...

view entire post

“Do virtual particles violate the Equivalence Principle?”

No, because virtual particles are Feynman diagrams, mere pencil marks on paper. Virtual particles violate all sorts of things, including traveling back in time, but collectively after summing all terms the overall theory is well behaved.

If your theory resembles virtual particles, you have to rigorously establish your...

view entire post

No, because virtual particles are Feynman diagrams, mere pencil marks on paper. Virtual particles violate all sorts of things, including traveling back in time, but collectively after summing all terms the overall theory is well behaved.

If your theory resembles virtual particles, you have to rigorously establish your...

view entire post

Florin,

'So if I free fall with an elevator, EP is not valid??? A co-falling experimenter can detect EP violations it there are any'

Florin, please attend to words! In order to write critique, you invent your own imaginary arguments. Please criticize my arguments but not yours. I wrote you about the reducing of weight effect at free falling but not EP violation. If you free fall on...

view entire post

'So if I free fall with an elevator, EP is not valid??? A co-falling experimenter can detect EP violations it there are any'

Florin, please attend to words! In order to write critique, you invent your own imaginary arguments. Please criticize my arguments but not yours. I wrote you about the reducing of weight effect at free falling but not EP violation. If you free fall on...

view entire post

Leshan,

You should put your ideas in mathematical terms and fight to get them published. Without math, they are only handwaving arguments that will always be dismissed.

You mentioned that you want to put an atomic clock to measure time changes near the place where collisions occur in a particle accelerator. This would not work for two reasons:

1. Practical reasons. By the very design of the accelerators, there is no room to put anything there.

2. Order of magnitude reasons. Gravity is an extremely weak force. The entire Earth cannot overcome the magnetic attraction between a magnet and metal plate. The space time curvature radius caused by the entire Earth is measured in light years. The most violent cosmic events create gravitational waves that are felt on Earth as displacement of less than 1 atomic distance for a meter of space. The space-time curvature (or your time effects) caused by a particle is many-many-many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of the best atomic clock today.

You should put your ideas in mathematical terms and fight to get them published. Without math, they are only handwaving arguments that will always be dismissed.

You mentioned that you want to put an atomic clock to measure time changes near the place where collisions occur in a particle accelerator. This would not work for two reasons:

1. Practical reasons. By the very design of the accelerators, there is no room to put anything there.

2. Order of magnitude reasons. Gravity is an extremely weak force. The entire Earth cannot overcome the magnetic attraction between a magnet and metal plate. The space time curvature radius caused by the entire Earth is measured in light years. The most violent cosmic events create gravitational waves that are felt on Earth as displacement of less than 1 atomic distance for a meter of space. The space-time curvature (or your time effects) caused by a particle is many-many-many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of the best atomic clock today.

Florin,

One my paper was accepted for publication already. I hope this paper will be published in 2010.

You wrote: 'The space-time curvature (or your time effects) caused by a particle is many-many-many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of the best atomic clock today'

If we create artificial holes, it is a source of gravitation. Gravitation is a inverse-square force that depends on distance. Since the distance R between the source of gravitation and clocks can be very small, therefore the time dilation effect can be very substantial. We can create holes even inside of clocks, in this case R=0. The sensitivity of atomic clocks can be very high because we can measure time during a long interval of time. It is a cumulative effect. If the clocks measures time during 2 - 5 months, we can register even the very weak source of holes! I hope the atomic clocks will detect the time dilation inside of collider during the interval of time 2 - 5 months.

'By the very design of the accelerators, there is no room to put anything there'

Let's try to put atomic clocks in the vicinity of the place where collisions occur. The artificial holes emits hole radiation (gravitation), therefore I hope that clocks are able to detect time dilation effect even from distant sources. Although I wish to put clocks just inside of volume where collisions occurs. For this puprose we can use the laser (atom) beam as clocks.

One my paper was accepted for publication already. I hope this paper will be published in 2010.

You wrote: 'The space-time curvature (or your time effects) caused by a particle is many-many-many orders of magnitude smaller than the accuracy of the best atomic clock today'

If we create artificial holes, it is a source of gravitation. Gravitation is a inverse-square force that depends on distance. Since the distance R between the source of gravitation and clocks can be very small, therefore the time dilation effect can be very substantial. We can create holes even inside of clocks, in this case R=0. The sensitivity of atomic clocks can be very high because we can measure time during a long interval of time. It is a cumulative effect. If the clocks measures time during 2 - 5 months, we can register even the very weak source of holes! I hope the atomic clocks will detect the time dilation inside of collider during the interval of time 2 - 5 months.

'By the very design of the accelerators, there is no room to put anything there'

Let's try to put atomic clocks in the vicinity of the place where collisions occur. The artificial holes emits hole radiation (gravitation), therefore I hope that clocks are able to detect time dilation effect even from distant sources. Although I wish to put clocks just inside of volume where collisions occurs. For this puprose we can use the laser (atom) beam as clocks.

Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems - traveling there using 'Star Trek' - style propulsion - or face extinction, renowned British cosmologist Stephen Hawking said Thursday. "Sooner or later disasters such as an asteroid collision or a nuclear war could wipe us all out," said Professor Hawking. 'But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe,' said Hawking, who received the world's oldest award for scientific achievement, the Copley Medal, from Britain's Royal Society on Thursday. In order to survive, humanity would have to venture off to other hospitable planets orbiting another star, but conventional chemical fuel rockets that took man to the moon on the Apollo mission would take 50,000 years to travel there, he said [Reuters]. Looking beyond our solar system, there are billions of potential suns with possible colonization targets.

It is impossible to reach stars using rockets, we need a faster than light transportation system. The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible [NASA.gov]. We must search for New Physics outside of the Standard Model, we need breakthroughs in physics. My theory allows faster than light teleportation of matter at the distance 13 billions light years. My theory does not violate relativity; it is motion of a bubble of space-time. 'Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within space-time, it is unknown how fast space-time itself can move'. Also my theory has advantages concerning wormhole and Alcubierre Warp drive because it requires NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. This system has great potential and sounds both reasonable and practical - sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules (as quantum teleportation). Hole teleportation theory has been considered in Teleportation Physics Study, page 52.

To prove my theory I need two atomic clocks only. I can show all experimental signs for holes in space-time. I do not need millions of dollars to prove this theory. I ask the entire world to help me to test my theory experimentally. My theory allows teleportation of matter. This technology will help increase the quality of life for all humanity.

It is impossible to reach stars using rockets, we need a faster than light transportation system. The bad news is that the bulk of scientific knowledge that we have accumulated to date concludes that faster than light travel is impossible [NASA.gov]. We must search for New Physics outside of the Standard Model, we need breakthroughs in physics. My theory allows faster than light teleportation of matter at the distance 13 billions light years. My theory does not violate relativity; it is motion of a bubble of space-time. 'Although Special Relativity forbids objects to move faster than light within space-time, it is unknown how fast space-time itself can move'. Also my theory has advantages concerning wormhole and Alcubierre Warp drive because it requires NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. This system has great potential and sounds both reasonable and practical - sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules (as quantum teleportation). Hole teleportation theory has been considered in Teleportation Physics Study, page 52.

To prove my theory I need two atomic clocks only. I can show all experimental signs for holes in space-time. I do not need millions of dollars to prove this theory. I ask the entire world to help me to test my theory experimentally. My theory allows teleportation of matter. This technology will help increase the quality of life for all humanity.

Dear Leshan,

In your Introduction, you explain why we cannot create a vacuum, then you go on to try to do exactly that. To your point, all space is probably permeated by a large number of neutrinos, gravitons, low-energy photons from blackbody radiation (T>0K), quantum fluctuations of matter-anti-matter pairs (or the Dirac Sea), and spacetime. Descartes was a great philosopher, but many of the concepts that plague an absolute vaccum post-date him.

My FQXi friends, Jason Wolfe and Lawrence Crowell have blogged at lengths about the possibilities of travelling through spacetime by warpng spacetime. It truly seems impossible to remove spacetime from a void. Even if you could remove spacetime in a quantum burst, it would not be stable. One should expect the Dirac Sea to rush in and quickly fill any transient void with matter-anti-matter pairs. Perhaps it is more reasonable to try to travel on the expected wave disturbance that follows one of these collapsing voids.

Yet still, there are those great astronomical Voids. Are they permanent rifts in spacetime that continually expel spacetime? Did matter clump in unexpected ways throughout our Universe? Do black holes and matter warp our observed light such that we think we see voids that aren't really present?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

In your Introduction, you explain why we cannot create a vacuum, then you go on to try to do exactly that. To your point, all space is probably permeated by a large number of neutrinos, gravitons, low-energy photons from blackbody radiation (T>0K), quantum fluctuations of matter-anti-matter pairs (or the Dirac Sea), and spacetime. Descartes was a great philosopher, but many of the concepts that plague an absolute vaccum post-date him.

My FQXi friends, Jason Wolfe and Lawrence Crowell have blogged at lengths about the possibilities of travelling through spacetime by warpng spacetime. It truly seems impossible to remove spacetime from a void. Even if you could remove spacetime in a quantum burst, it would not be stable. One should expect the Dirac Sea to rush in and quickly fill any transient void with matter-anti-matter pairs. Perhaps it is more reasonable to try to travel on the expected wave disturbance that follows one of these collapsing voids.

Yet still, there are those great astronomical Voids. Are they permanent rifts in spacetime that continually expel spacetime? Did matter clump in unexpected ways throughout our Universe? Do black holes and matter warp our observed light such that we think we see voids that aren't really present?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

You wrote: 'It truly seems impossible to remove space-time from a void'.

I have the following arguments against: 1) I use the notion 'remove space-time from a void' for macroscopic explanation of this phenomenon only. Really I remove all MATTER from a volume, not space-time. For example if a particle strikes another particle, one leaves its volume at near-luminal...

view entire post

You wrote: 'It truly seems impossible to remove space-time from a void'.

I have the following arguments against: 1) I use the notion 'remove space-time from a void' for macroscopic explanation of this phenomenon only. Really I remove all MATTER from a volume, not space-time. For example if a particle strikes another particle, one leaves its volume at near-luminal...

view entire post

Dear Leshan,

Yes, of course "holes" exist in certain phenomena. A positron can be considered a hole in the Dirac Sea. And electron holes (with negative effective mass) in valence bands are an important part of how a semiconductor functions.

I misunderstood the direction of your paper. I know you are trying to remove all matter (which is probably impossible itself - consider the low-energy photons from blackbody radiation since T>0K by the 3rd law of Thermodynamics), but I thought you were also trying to remove spacetime - on page 2 you said "in order to create the absolute vacuum, first we must remove the space-time from the vacuum chamber."

Regardless of whether I understood you properly or not, it seems like a reasonable request to try your atomic clock experiment. You should send a proposal to the LHC.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Yes, of course "holes" exist in certain phenomena. A positron can be considered a hole in the Dirac Sea. And electron holes (with negative effective mass) in valence bands are an important part of how a semiconductor functions.

I misunderstood the direction of your paper. I know you are trying to remove all matter (which is probably impossible itself - consider the low-energy photons from blackbody radiation since T>0K by the 3rd law of Thermodynamics), but I thought you were also trying to remove spacetime - on page 2 you said "in order to create the absolute vacuum, first we must remove the space-time from the vacuum chamber."

Regardless of whether I understood you properly or not, it seems like a reasonable request to try your atomic clock experiment. You should send a proposal to the LHC.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

I have found the simplest and best explanation of my theory. Please forget about the vacuum chamber – it is a macroscopic example whereas really I use the quantum phenomena only. In my view, my macroscopic introduction with a vacuum chamber confuses an issue.

You wrote: 'Yes, of course 'holes' exist in certain phenomena. A positron can be considered a hole in...

view entire post

I have found the simplest and best explanation of my theory. Please forget about the vacuum chamber – it is a macroscopic example whereas really I use the quantum phenomena only. In my view, my macroscopic introduction with a vacuum chamber confuses an issue.

You wrote: 'Yes, of course 'holes' exist in certain phenomena. A positron can be considered a hole in...

view entire post

Dear Leshan,

I get it.

And a "hole" might attract an "anti-hole" cloud (sort of like phonon disturbances around an electron hole or an electron cloud around a proton). It just seems weird to call it a "hole in spacetime", but I don't have a better name for it.

Good luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

I get it.

And a "hole" might attract an "anti-hole" cloud (sort of like phonon disturbances around an electron hole or an electron cloud around a proton). It just seems weird to call it a "hole in spacetime", but I don't have a better name for it.

Good luck in the contest!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

You wrote 'It just seems weird to call it a 'hole in spacetime', but I don't have a better name for it.'

If an elementary volume disappears, instead appears a vacant place without extension and time properties. Do you have another name for such objects? It is a hole in space-time because it does not possess the extension and duration properties.

'And a 'hole' might attract an 'anti-hole' cloud'

Dear Ray, please read my gravitation theory from essay. The hole in space-time attracts ALL MATTER and curves the space-time, it is gravitation. A hole in space-time is an only 'particle' able to explain the gravitational curvature of space-time using its properties only. The massive body emits a flux of holes that curves the space-time. This hole gravitation theory has been supported by Soros foundation in 1995.

Imagine we increase the concentration of holes in space-time. Since holes are timeless and extension-less objects, it decreases the distances between every two points and slow down the time. In the limiting case, when space-time consists of holes only, the distances between every two points are equal to zero time dilation is infinite (time don’t exist outside of Universe). The hole radiation is able to create time dilation and length contraction effects because it is the timeless and extension-less hole in space-time. Can you explain the time dilation and length contraction effects using your gravitons or strings (without formulae)?

Thus, a hole in space-time is an only 'particle' able to explain the time dilation and length contraction near massive bodies using its properties only. I suggest you to include holes in your TOE theories. I assure you that during next 10 years the holes in space-time will be very popular among theorists.

Sincerely, Leshan

You wrote 'It just seems weird to call it a 'hole in spacetime', but I don't have a better name for it.'

If an elementary volume disappears, instead appears a vacant place without extension and time properties. Do you have another name for such objects? It is a hole in space-time because it does not possess the extension and duration properties.

'And a 'hole' might attract an 'anti-hole' cloud'

Dear Ray, please read my gravitation theory from essay. The hole in space-time attracts ALL MATTER and curves the space-time, it is gravitation. A hole in space-time is an only 'particle' able to explain the gravitational curvature of space-time using its properties only. The massive body emits a flux of holes that curves the space-time. This hole gravitation theory has been supported by Soros foundation in 1995.

Imagine we increase the concentration of holes in space-time. Since holes are timeless and extension-less objects, it decreases the distances between every two points and slow down the time. In the limiting case, when space-time consists of holes only, the distances between every two points are equal to zero time dilation is infinite (time don’t exist outside of Universe). The hole radiation is able to create time dilation and length contraction effects because it is the timeless and extension-less hole in space-time. Can you explain the time dilation and length contraction effects using your gravitons or strings (without formulae)?

Thus, a hole in space-time is an only 'particle' able to explain the time dilation and length contraction near massive bodies using its properties only. I suggest you to include holes in your TOE theories. I assure you that during next 10 years the holes in space-time will be very popular among theorists.

Sincerely, Leshan

Dear Leshan,

I get it. These holes have effects similar to a graviton but without quantum numbers?

My essay was called "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I am trying to build a suitable geometrical foundation for a TOE - it does not (yet) include everything.

My model predicts some wierd particles as well, but I don't think it defines a hole because a hole should not carry quantum numbers - it is nothing! Perhaps the hole would be a lattice defect in my model. Does the absence of anticipated quantum numbers equate with anti-quantum numbers?

Have you sent a proposal to the LHC?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

I get it. These holes have effects similar to a graviton but without quantum numbers?

My essay was called "A Geometrical Approach Towards A TOE". I am trying to build a suitable geometrical foundation for a TOE - it does not (yet) include everything.

My model predicts some wierd particles as well, but I don't think it defines a hole because a hole should not carry quantum numbers - it is nothing! Perhaps the hole would be a lattice defect in my model. Does the absence of anticipated quantum numbers equate with anti-quantum numbers?

Have you sent a proposal to the LHC?

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

'These holes have effects similar to a graviton but without quantum numbers?'

The holes explain gravitation better than gravitons. Gravitons are not able to explain time dilation and length contraction effects. Holes do not needs quantum numbers to explain gravity because hole gravitation is a NON-EXHANGE interaction. No exchange of any particles between bodies, the gravitational attraction appears just because holes curve the space-time. The curvature of space-time is a cloud of holes surrounding the body. These holes curve space-time due to appear the gravitational attraction. No quantum numbers are necessary for holes to curve the space-time. Therefore the unification of all 4-interactions is not possible because gravitation is a non-exchange theory. How you unify three exchange theories with a non-exchange gravitation?

Nevertheless I suspect that holes may have some quantum characteristics. It is true that hole is nothing, but this nothing exist some time in the real space-time. Therefore the space-time may give some quantum characteristics for holes.

'Have you sent a proposal to the LHC?'

I need a less-powerful accelerator for beginning. Also I can search for time dilation effect at atomic power plants. There are a lot of Atomic stations in Ukraine and Russia. Since I worked at earlier at accelerator U-120 from Kiev, I hope its administration may allow this experiment. My theory predicts the bigger time dilation effect that standard theory. Therefore the detection of time dilation effect will be the experimental evidence for holes.

Sincerely, Leshan

'These holes have effects similar to a graviton but without quantum numbers?'

The holes explain gravitation better than gravitons. Gravitons are not able to explain time dilation and length contraction effects. Holes do not needs quantum numbers to explain gravity because hole gravitation is a NON-EXHANGE interaction. No exchange of any particles between bodies, the gravitational attraction appears just because holes curve the space-time. The curvature of space-time is a cloud of holes surrounding the body. These holes curve space-time due to appear the gravitational attraction. No quantum numbers are necessary for holes to curve the space-time. Therefore the unification of all 4-interactions is not possible because gravitation is a non-exchange theory. How you unify three exchange theories with a non-exchange gravitation?

Nevertheless I suspect that holes may have some quantum characteristics. It is true that hole is nothing, but this nothing exist some time in the real space-time. Therefore the space-time may give some quantum characteristics for holes.

'Have you sent a proposal to the LHC?'

I need a less-powerful accelerator for beginning. Also I can search for time dilation effect at atomic power plants. There are a lot of Atomic stations in Ukraine and Russia. Since I worked at earlier at accelerator U-120 from Kiev, I hope its administration may allow this experiment. My theory predicts the bigger time dilation effect that standard theory. Therefore the detection of time dilation effect will be the experimental evidence for holes.

Sincerely, Leshan

Dear Leshan,

If Gravitation is based solely on Spacetime curvature as General Relativity describes, then your hole is a "non-quantum graviton". As a Particle Physicist myself, I hope that Gravitation has a quantum nature with a spin-2 graviton that exchanges some sort of mass, energy and momentum quantum numbers. Of course, there is no guarantee of this, and Nature doesn't necessarily care what Ray or Leshan prefers.

In my model, fermions are 8-dimensional, and bosons can have dimensionality of up to 11. This means that some of these hypothetical particles (although properly defined in 12-dimensions) are not properly defined in 4-dimensions. An example are my "scalar fermions" that make perfectly good logic in 8-dimensions, but not in 4-dimensions. Would these behave like lattice defects in 4-D that could in turn behave like your holes? I'm not sure. I need to think about this more...

Good luck with your time dilation experiment. Experimental evidence is the best way to convince the physics community of a paridigm shift.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

If Gravitation is based solely on Spacetime curvature as General Relativity describes, then your hole is a "non-quantum graviton". As a Particle Physicist myself, I hope that Gravitation has a quantum nature with a spin-2 graviton that exchanges some sort of mass, energy and momentum quantum numbers. Of course, there is no guarantee of this, and Nature doesn't necessarily care what Ray or Leshan prefers.

In my model, fermions are 8-dimensional, and bosons can have dimensionality of up to 11. This means that some of these hypothetical particles (although properly defined in 12-dimensions) are not properly defined in 4-dimensions. An example are my "scalar fermions" that make perfectly good logic in 8-dimensions, but not in 4-dimensions. Would these behave like lattice defects in 4-D that could in turn behave like your holes? I'm not sure. I need to think about this more...

Good luck with your time dilation experiment. Experimental evidence is the best way to convince the physics community of a paridigm shift.

Have Fun!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

Thank you for information, probably I'll use the notion "non-quantum graviton" in my future papers. If you wish, I can mention your authors rights for this notion.

'Of course, there is no guarantee of this, and Nature doesn't necessarily care what Ray or Leshan prefers'

You are right. Therefore, as a Particle Physicist, you must research both directions at the same time: gravitation may have the exchange or non-exchange nature. I invite you to research the non-exchange hole theory of gravitation. Holes are able to explain INERTIA, time dilation, length contraction and the curvature of space-time. We can prepare and publish papers together. This theory allows also teleportation of matter. Can I send you the draft of my hole gravitation theory? We can eliminate all theory problems by dialogue through Internet. Please write me to qphysics25@gmail.com

Sincerely, Leshan

Thank you for information, probably I'll use the notion "non-quantum graviton" in my future papers. If you wish, I can mention your authors rights for this notion.

'Of course, there is no guarantee of this, and Nature doesn't necessarily care what Ray or Leshan prefers'

You are right. Therefore, as a Particle Physicist, you must research both directions at the same time: gravitation may have the exchange or non-exchange nature. I invite you to research the non-exchange hole theory of gravitation. Holes are able to explain INERTIA, time dilation, length contraction and the curvature of space-time. We can prepare and publish papers together. This theory allows also teleportation of matter. Can I send you the draft of my hole gravitation theory? We can eliminate all theory problems by dialogue through Internet. Please write me to qphysics25@gmail.com

Sincerely, Leshan

I thank to those who already rated my essay. However, I would like to see also their arguments about essay.

I wrote the introduction about vacuum chamber in order to make the essay more interesting. Soon will be published a more 'scientific' version of this theory in Concepts of Physics, Volume VI (2009), Number 4.

I wrote the introduction about vacuum chamber in order to make the essay more interesting. Soon will be published a more 'scientific' version of this theory in Concepts of Physics, Volume VI (2009), Number 4.

Dear Leshan,

Upon thinking about your paper more, I have come to two conclusions that may or may not be correct: 1) your hole must be a quantum effect (to "cheat" the infrared divergence), and 2) your hole more closely resembles a Higgs (which defines mass) than a graviton (which defines gravity). This is not a bad thing - mass and gravitation are closely related.

My opinion is that your appeal to Descartes' classical vacuum was unnecessary, and you made some strange comments, such as "in order to create the absolute vacuum, first we must remove the space-time from the vacuum chamber." Perhaps this is a language quirk - I am certain that English is not your primary language, but the comment distracted me from the purpose of the paper.

Nonetheless, you presented an interesting theoretical "quanta" that can, in principle, be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment. From a physics content perspective, your paper is better than many of the papers in this competition, and you deserved better scores than the four 1's that you received in the community vote. They are anonymous chickens - they will not confront you with why they gave you the worst possible score.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

Upon thinking about your paper more, I have come to two conclusions that may or may not be correct: 1) your hole must be a quantum effect (to "cheat" the infrared divergence), and 2) your hole more closely resembles a Higgs (which defines mass) than a graviton (which defines gravity). This is not a bad thing - mass and gravitation are closely related.

My opinion is that your appeal to Descartes' classical vacuum was unnecessary, and you made some strange comments, such as "in order to create the absolute vacuum, first we must remove the space-time from the vacuum chamber." Perhaps this is a language quirk - I am certain that English is not your primary language, but the comment distracted me from the purpose of the paper.

Nonetheless, you presented an interesting theoretical "quanta" that can, in principle, be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment. From a physics content perspective, your paper is better than many of the papers in this competition, and you deserved better scores than the four 1's that you received in the community vote. They are anonymous chickens - they will not confront you with why they gave you the worst possible score.

Good Luck!

Ray Munroe

Dear Ray Munroe,

Thank you, I agree that holes must be a quantum effects. In spite of fact that the hole is 'nothing', one exist some time in real space-time, consequently a hole must have quantum properties.

You wrote: Nonetheless, you presented an interesting theoretical 'quanta' that can, in principle, be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment. From a physics content perspective, your paper is better than many of the papers in this competition.

Yes, the existence of holes can be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment using two atomic clocks. However, I see that readers don't rate such kind of theories, they prefer a review essays about time and quantum mechanics. Therefore in the next competition I'll submit also a review paper about time or quantum mechanics. In my view, readers love such reviews about quantum mechanics or time papers and hate invention of new particles and New Physics. In previous competition I submitted the Unique Time Travel method. Readers must understand that authors are able to compose a lot of review papers about quantum mechanics every year, but it is impossible to write another logical and consistent Time Travel method. Authors can write a lot of review papers continually but it is impossible to invent new particles like holes every year. In my view, the unique logical theories must have advantages concerning review papers about quantum mechanics and time. Otherwise authors will submit a review papers for competition only because nobody rate inventions and proposals for New Physics.

Sincerely, Leshan

Thank you, I agree that holes must be a quantum effects. In spite of fact that the hole is 'nothing', one exist some time in real space-time, consequently a hole must have quantum properties.

You wrote: Nonetheless, you presented an interesting theoretical 'quanta' that can, in principle, be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment. From a physics content perspective, your paper is better than many of the papers in this competition.

Yes, the existence of holes can be proven or dis-proven with a relatively simple experiment using two atomic clocks. However, I see that readers don't rate such kind of theories, they prefer a review essays about time and quantum mechanics. Therefore in the next competition I'll submit also a review paper about time or quantum mechanics. In my view, readers love such reviews about quantum mechanics or time papers and hate invention of new particles and New Physics. In previous competition I submitted the Unique Time Travel method. Readers must understand that authors are able to compose a lot of review papers about quantum mechanics every year, but it is impossible to write another logical and consistent Time Travel method. Authors can write a lot of review papers continually but it is impossible to invent new particles like holes every year. In my view, the unique logical theories must have advantages concerning review papers about quantum mechanics and time. Otherwise authors will submit a review papers for competition only because nobody rate inventions and proposals for New Physics.

Sincerely, Leshan

Dear Anthony Aguirre,

You wrote: We thought long and hard as to how to improve the voting/rating/judging system, and became convinced that no system is perfect, but that this one is worth trying.

I have an idea how to improve the voting/rating/judging system. I propose to transform FQXi contest into the battlefield for ideas. Every author must review and rate at least two essays.

The review of essay must answer the following questions: Does this essay advance physics? Does an essay contain the new physical ideas? Does the essay contain the logical errors? This information could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of each essay.

I assure you, it is the best voting/rating/judging system because people cannot take advantage of the system and manipulate the ratings. All readers will see the errors and merits of each essay. In this way we'll find the best essay which really advances physics.

The best essay must have the best review, new ideas, and no errors.

Sincerely,

Constantin Leshan

You wrote: We thought long and hard as to how to improve the voting/rating/judging system, and became convinced that no system is perfect, but that this one is worth trying.

I have an idea how to improve the voting/rating/judging system. I propose to transform FQXi contest into the battlefield for ideas. Every author must review and rate at least two essays.

The review of essay must answer the following questions: Does this essay advance physics? Does an essay contain the new physical ideas? Does the essay contain the logical errors? This information could help us to find the best essay by comparing the merits and demerits of each essay.

I assure you, it is the best voting/rating/judging system because people cannot take advantage of the system and manipulate the ratings. All readers will see the errors and merits of each essay. In this way we'll find the best essay which really advances physics.

The best essay must have the best review, new ideas, and no errors.

Sincerely,

Constantin Leshan

Imagine, I published on Oct. 3, 2009 information about publication of my paper "Descartes' vacuum in Hole gravitation theory" in "Concepts of Physics", Volume VI (2009), Number 4 after that this Journal was closed! I have a deep suspicion this journal was closed in order to stop the publication of my paper!

Also my site www.leshan.nm.ru (Russian version of my Journal Hole physics, teleportation and levitation) was destroyed 5 months ago. Probably, the unknown forces wish to stop the development of my "holes in space-time" theory!

My new site for "Hole physics, teleportation and levitation" will be here:

http://sites.google.com/site/holephys/

Also my site www.leshan.nm.ru (Russian version of my Journal Hole physics, teleportation and levitation) was destroyed 5 months ago. Probably, the unknown forces wish to stop the development of my "holes in space-time" theory!

My new site for "Hole physics, teleportation and levitation" will be here:

http://sites.google.com/site/holephys/

Hello constantin,

I've been trying to get back in touch with you. I think it is possible to travel through space and time with vacuum hole teleportation. Please get in touch with me.

You should remember me, Robert Feld.

I've been trying to get back in touch with you. I think it is possible to travel through space and time with vacuum hole teleportation. Please get in touch with me.

You should remember me, Robert Feld.