Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


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

Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fnd.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

journal: on 5/20/11 at 21:50pm UTC, wrote You are wrong, if this is only a dubious news website one cannot even know...

journal: on 5/19/11 at 18:29pm UTC, wrote Vertical News is not a journal, you cannot be serious trying to justify...

Constantin Leshan: on 5/16/11 at 8:10am UTC, wrote According to Einstein's General Relativity, ''gravity'' is just another...

Constantin Leshan: on 4/30/11 at 5:21am UTC, wrote Egal wrote: ''Compact spaces are spaces that can be covered with finite...

Anonymous: on 4/23/11 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Do you have any proofs?

dreamer: on 4/21/11 at 17:31pm UTC, wrote dreamer

Anonymous: on 4/17/11 at 8:28am UTC, wrote Why do not you create the new teleportation theory? If you try to create a...

doom's day: on 4/16/11 at 14:25pm UTC, wrote cute dreamer


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "John, I reported your post as inappropriate as it is mostly irrelevant to..." in What Is...

Scott Gordon: "This article states,"Carroll believes the misfit between the two theories..." in In Search of a Quantum...

thuy lien: "Your article completely convinced me. Thank you for sharing. vampyrgame ..." in Agency in the Physical...

thuy lien: "Thanks for sharing, very useful information. You can visit my site for more..." in What Is...

thuy lien: "VAMPYR: You can feed on literally anyone in the game VAMPYR was revealed..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Nishant Gaurav: "Want to get free playstation plus codes, Yes now these psn plus codes are..." in Jacob Bekenstein...

Nishant Gaurav: "The best to win among hustle for online live gaming platform, is online..." in Quantum Replicants:...

Nishant Gaurav: "When it come to paypal user look for various information and also look for..." in Retrocausality,...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.

Quantum Dream Time
Defining a ‘quantum clock’ and a 'quantum ruler' could help those attempting to unify physics—and solve the mystery of vanishing time.

Our Place in the Multiverse
Calculating the odds that intelligent observers arise in parallel universes—and working out what they might see.

Sounding the Drums to Listen for Gravity’s Effect on Quantum Phenomena
A bench-top experiment could test the notion that gravity breaks delicate quantum superpositions.

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.


FQXi FORUM
December 14, 2017

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: Hole Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Constantin Zaharia Leshan [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 11, 2011 @ 16:16 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our world is a quantum and discontinuous world and any phenomena that look classical are approximate or derived. All macroscopic properties of a classical system are direct consequences of the quantum behavior of its parts. The finite Universe has an impenetrable edge in form of the virtual, ubiquitous holes which prevent classical motion at small scales and cause quantum behavior: the particles must "jump" over holes continually and it is a cause of quantum behavior. Since the holes are very small, therefore microscopic particles behave differently than classical macroscopic objects. If we increased the size of the holes, we would be able to convert any macroscopic body into a quantum object with long de Broglie wavelength. All quantum mechanical phenomena are ultimately a consequence of existence of vacuum holes and quanta: the holes in spacetime can explain quantum behavior, nonlocality, entanglement, motion, uncertainty principle, teleportation, gravitation, inertia and so on. The probabilistic character of the quantum mechanics originates from a discontinuous, fluctuating spacetime with holes and intrinsic randomness of Hole Teleportation events. The Universe is composed of indivisible atoms, suspended in the void (holes). The reality is fundamentally quantum, discrete and discontinuous, and therefore digital, but looks classical to us as a result of smallness of the holes and decoherence.

Author Bio

Born 1964, I am an independent researcher, living in Moldova; I studied nuclear physics in Kiev State University (1985 – 1990).

Download Essay PDF File




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 01:24 GMT
Dear Constantin,

You write: ---"The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime. Consequently, outside of the Universe is nothing in an absolute sense."---

Well, if there's nothing outside the universe, then as 'seen' from the outside, the universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality. This agrees with conservation laws: if the universe creates itself out of nothing, without any stuff or intervention from the outside, then the total of everything inside of it, all objects and events, including spacetime itself, must remain nil. In a self-creating universe particles have to create themselves, each other, like a particle/anti-particle pair can pop up out of nothing without violating any conservation law. If particles only exist as far as they interact, exchange energy, then ---"all particles appear and disappear continually"--- because they alternately borrow and lend each other the energy they need to exist, to express that existence. The higher the frequency they exchange energy at, the higher their energy is. So the particles create and 'un-create' each other in every cycle, forcing each other to reappear again and again after every disappearance. As the frequency of their exchange depends on their distance, they can only preserve their rest energy by forcing each other to reappear at about the same positions, effectively providing each other with inertia. So we wouldn't need holes to explain why ---"an electron can find its original position"---

---"Hence an object is totally decoupled from the rest of the Universe and must show quantum behavior"---

An object which is completely isolated from interacting, from exchanging energy with the rest of the universe, from all fields and influences, even from gravity, doesn't exist, has no physical reality, so cannot show any behavior. If we could isolate it, we'd annihilate it. For details see my essay.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 12, 2011 @ 11:12 GMT
Dear Anton,

You write 'if there's nothing outside the universe, then as 'seen' from the outside, the universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality'.

At the center of a black hole the spacetime curvature becomes infinite: the time has stopped, and gravitational length contraction tends to infinity. Thus, the black holes are very similar to vacuum holes (the edge of the Universe). Hence, 'sitting' inside a black hole you'll say that the Universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality. Therefore, your argument is not valid - even if you do not see the Universe, it does not mean that the Universe doesn't exist, has no physical reality'. Besides, you cannot exist outside of the Universe because a hole does not have the extension and time properties, therefore it can not contain your body: you cannot inspect it from the outside, and you cannot see the Universe from the outside. An observer who physically is a part of the Universe and exist inside of the Universe can see the Universe only.

You write: 'An object which is completely isolated from interacting, from exchanging energy with the rest of the universe, from all fields and influences, even from gravity, doesn't exist, has no physical reality'. You are right - an object which is completely isolated disappears, and doesn't exist in the start place - it is Hole Teleportation. However, a body disappears in one place and reappears in another place of the Universe in the same instant. In the new place one begin to interact with environment in the same instant. Actually, the object interacts continually with the Universe, because the teleportation is instantaneous.

And here you are wrong about that perfect isolated systems 'cannot show any behavior. If we could isolate it, we'd annihilate it.' It is generally known that the complex system can display quantum behavior only if it is very isolated. You'll never see any quantum behavior in a system strongly interacting with environment. Therefore, it is self-evident that we can obtain the largest amount of quantum behavior by creating the perfect isolation in absolute sense. You must understand that the body is decoupled from the rest of the Universe during the time dt=0, because teleportation is instantaneous. In the same instant the body begin to interact with new environment, in new place.

Sincerely,

Constantin



Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 04:41 GMT
Dear Constantin

You write:

---"At the center of a black hole the spacetime curvature becomes infinite: the time has stopped, and gravitational length contraction tends to infinity."---

Though the value of a quantity may not have a limit, in practice the properties of any physical object can be expressed in finite numbers. That we cannot measure or calculate them doesn't mean...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

peter replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT
And Constantin has spoken "Therefore, your argument is not valid" and he thinks he has proven that everybody is wrong. (sarcasm, obviously)

The logical chain of thought of Constantin is:

a) Nobody knows what happens inside a black hole

b) Constantin knows what happens in a black hole

c) Constantin says that black holes are like his vacuum holes

d) One can just drive to a vacuum hole

e) Therefore one can travel in time and space

Very scientific...

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 31, 2011 @ 20:06 GMT
First, my essay do not mention about black holes therefore your notes are outside of the essay' topic. Also, your logical chain is wrong - I never said such fantasy.

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 13, 2011 @ 10:30 GMT
Dear Anton,

'So the curvature does not become infinite, but just extremely great'.

At the center of a black hole the spacetime curvature becomes infinite - it is the official statement of Modern Science (but not my opinion), please read the Wikipedia article about Black hole . If you are sure that the curvature does not become infinite, please send a paper describing your findings to Physical Review Letters, because it is important for Black Hole Physics; my essay does not contains the notion of black hole.

'Indeed: as seen from deep inside the hole's field, we, our world doesn't exist'.

Since you agree with it, it means that your first argument is not valid. It is in contradiction with your first proposition 'if there's nothing outside the universe, then as 'seen' from the outside, the universe doesn't exist'. I gave you an example with black holes in order to demonstrate you, that the observer sitting inside of black hole also sees nothing; Thus, the observers inside of vacuum hole and black hole see the same - nothing. Meanwhile, the modern science affirms that black holes really exist. Thus, your first argument is wrong. Also, since black holes really exist, consequently my vacuum holes also can really exist, because they are very similar.

'then they would stop to exist to each other if by isolating them from each other, we could cut off this exchange'

You don't understand my opinion about absolute isolation because you do not know about instantaneous Hole Teleportation. Please understand that we cannot really isolate an object in absolute sense because the object immediately disappears and reappears in another place, in the same intant - it is Hole Teleportation. Therefore, ever if we create the absolute isolation, the object tries to escape using Hole Teleportation in order to continue its interaction with environment in new place.Thus, the object actually interacts CONTINUALLY with environment because Hole Teleportation is instantaneous. We cannot isolate the objects in absolute sense for long time, because they immediately leave this isolated place in order to interact with environment in another place.

Sincerely,

Constantin



Ray Munroe replied on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 01:15 GMT
Dear Leshan,

I don't think that a physical infinity (Black Hole singularity?) can exist in a finite Universe (13.7 billion light years is huge, but finite). Therefore, I think that the Black Hole "singularity" is prevented by a lattice of the very fabric of Spacetime (which is related to your "holes" - holes are a lattice defect in the very fabric of Spacetime). The lattice geometry that best fits a static Black Hole core is that of a buckyball (soccer ball, truncated icosahedron, Carbon-60, a lattice-like near sphere - a perfect sphere would be deflated by the crushing gravitational pressure of the "singularity"). The curvature of the buckyball introduces the physical necessity for gravitational curvature. This assumption is consistent with Subir Sachdev's expectation of a graphite-based (another Carbon allotrope) Gravitational Holography. Layers of nested buckyballs with flipped symmetries gradually build a lattice very similar to a diamond (except it has a lattice defect - one of your "holes"? - at the point of expected "singularity"). But a rotating Black Hole may generate the homotopic cousin of a pair of nested buckyballs, which is a lattice-like near torus (or donut) as I have discussed extensively on Rafael Castel's blog thread (topic 835). In this example, your "hole" may be the donut hole at the Black Hole "singularity".

Welcome to the essay contest - you should visit FQXi more often than just essay contests. I need to catch-up and read your essay. My latest essay is at topic 816.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Feb. 20, 2011 @ 02:07 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Indeed, The Official Statement of Modern Science is wrong, one reason being that the speed of light isn't a velocity, so a black hole has no event horizon. The belief that there's a singularity at the center follows from the false assumption that the mass of particles is an absolute, objective quantity, that is, only the source, and not also the product of their interactions. 'Singularities' and 'black holes' are the product of our addiction to fairy tales and use their lingo. This is why in my essay I speak about 'black-hole like' objects. Modern science doesn't 'affirm that black holes really exist', only that there exist very heavy, compact objects. As to 'seen from deep inside the hole's field, we, our world doesn't exist': that doesn't mean that we would see nothing. The speed of light is just a property of spacetime (see the UPDATE 2 post at my thread about Time. This post also touches upon the subject of quantum teleportation, EPR experiments). Though a photon indeed bridges the spaceTIME distance between its source and receiver in no time at all, an observer does measure a time equal to their distance. Whereas in this sense a photon transmission is instantaneous, this is impossible for massive particles. If they express and preserve their mass by exchanging energy, then displacing a mass would affect the energy of the objects it was anchored to in its original location, as well as that of its new neighbors after the displacement. Another problem is how you can instruct the particle to end up where you want it except by accelerating it.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Anton,

I gave you an example of Black Hole singularity from Wikipedia in order to show you that black holes and vacuum holes are very similar. However, since you do not accept the statements of modern science about Black Hole singularity, therefore I'll prove my point of view without using Black Holes.

Thus, your first question was 'Well, if there's nothing outside the universe,...

view entire post





Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 14, 2011 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Dr. Ray Munroe,

It's great to hear from you. Although the problem of physical infinity (Black Hole singularity?) is not important for me at the moment, because my essay do not deals with black holes, nevertheless, it is very interesting to know why it can not exist in a Finite Universe.

Thank you for invitation, I'm going to visit your page 816 and read your essay.

I wish you lots of luck in the contest.

Constantin




Peter van Gaalen wrote on Feb. 18, 2011 @ 14:26 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I like your way of thinking. But do you have any justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist? you refer to 'spatial atoms'. But length is a quantity. Atoms are physical objects. Do you mean a spactime atom as an object with different kinds of properties such as a discrete length? In what sense is it different from material atoms?

In quantum theory a particle can pop up on Mars or on the Earth. Depends on the wavefunction. But what is your mathematical justification for non-traversable "tunnels"? Is your opinion different from quantum mechanics?

And what do you think about probability waves that are continuous physical phenomena? Are the media that wave continuous or discrete?

Friendly Regards

Peter van Gaalen#903

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Dear Peter van Gaalen,

You write: 'But do you have any justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist?'

Yes, I have a very important justification for that continuous spacetime can't exist: 1) The Universe is expanding; In the first microseconds of expansion the Universe was very small and therefore finite in volume. In spite of expansion, the Universe will have the finite...

view entire post





Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 03:44 GMT
Dear Leshan

As to whether holes exist, see my post at my thread (my reply to Dan Benedict) of 1 march.

Regards, Anton

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:00 GMT
Dear Anton,

Probably you mean the ''Black Holes'' by the word ''holes'', since I don't found any mention about my vacuum holes in your thread. There is a considerable difference between the orthodox notion of the Black Holes and my vacuum holes.

You wrote in this post ''the speed of light isn't a velocity but rather a property of spacetime''.

By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.

I can add another flaw in the Black Hole theory: according to the theory, the magnetic field is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. Since the light (virtual photons) cannot escape from a black hole, therefore the Black Holes cannot have the magnetic fields.

Sincerely,

Constantin



Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 14:28 GMT
Dear Constantin and Anton,

On Feb 14 in this thread, I gave the analogy that Constantin's quantum hole and a black hole "singularity" may both be lattice defects in the very fabric of spacetime. I think they may be related - if not identical. Of course, Constantin's primary purpose is to make a case for a type of interstellar travel that apparently defies relativity, and not to explain the "stability" of black holes. Nonetheless, it would be cool if these ideas are related. In later runs, the LHC may try to produce mini black holes. What if these phenomena reinforce Constantin's idea?

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

According to the theory, the lattice defects and topological defects seem to have the totally different properties in comparison with the holes in spacetime. However, the holes in spacetime may be similar to the Black Holes. In other words, I hope that Black Holes are the large holes in spacetime. It is in agreement with the fact that both Black Hole and vacuum hole cannot have the magnetic fields, most likely they are the same objects.

According to hole theory of gravitation, the LHC produce holes in spacetime and we can prove it by using the atomic clocks. Also I want to use LHC for experimental Hole Teleportation but I need access to equipment and information. We can teleport particles, nuclei or atoms up to distance of some light years by using particle accelerators.

Regards,

Constantin




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 03:04 GMT
Dear Leshan,

''By definition, the velocity is the rate and direction of the change in the position of an object. For example, since light travels a distance ct during the time t, it is in agreement with the definition of the velocity.''

We can only speak about the velocity of an object with respect to objects if and when it interacts with them as it moves. Since the photon has no...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 09:20 GMT
Dear Anton,

We can speak about the velocity of the photon with respect to its source and receiver. For example, if the photons were emitted by a star and then hit our detector, then we can speak about the velocity of the photons with respect to the source star and detector.

You wrote: ''Since the photon has no mass or charge, it cannot express its presence to the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move: having no mass, it cannot have a position. If it doesn't interact, exist to these objects nor the environment to the photon, then it makes no sense to speak about its velocity as there's nothing with respect to which it moves''.

The photon has ENERGY, and therefore it curves the spacetime, according to GR. Therefore, a beam of photons curve the spacetime and interacts gravitationally with the objects with respect to which it is supposed to move. You see during a solar eclipse that the stars along the same line of sight as the Sun are shifted. It is because the light from the star behind the Sun is bent toward the Sun and the Earth.

You wrote: ''Since we assume that the universe evolves as a whole with respect to some clock outside of it, we assume the emission of the photon to (causally) precede its absorption elsewhere, according to that clock''.

1) There is neither matter nor clocks outside of the Universe. 2) You try to introduce the Absolute Time measured by God-like clocks placed outside of the Universe. Remember, the Universe has no Absolute Time, no absolute frame of reference, and no absolute space. All is relative.

You wrote:''If particle A emits a photon which is absorbed by B'' - if you describe the EPR paradox then this description is not correct; Also, Quantum teleportation transmits quantum state only but not photons or energy, and this teleportation is not instantaneous. The initial photon is destroyed and then is recreated in the finish place. It is not the transmission of photon but of quantum state only.

There are some problems with causality in quantum mechanics, in consequence of its inability to provide descriptions of the causes of all actually observed effects.

Sincerely,

Constantin




Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 3, 2011 @ 10:58 GMT
Constantin

I noted your comments on the leading essay. If you've read mine you'll be aware of my belief that content, with reality, logic and falsifiability, is indeed my priority. I agree our leader does not lead with those, but feel it's value is still beyond simple entertainment, reminding us of a particular scientific approach we'd do well to remember.

I read your essay and couldn't find falsifiability in your main premise, which is not consistent with the significant evidence and logic my own theory uses, which is all consistent with a discontinuous continuum, at 2.7 degrees always in the local (last scattering) rest frame of the CMB. From this I derive CSL, which removes the need for Einstein's original 'denial' of the 'ethers' influence on EM signal propagation. (though he confirmed "space without ether is unthinkable".

None the less I found your essay well written and, considering your task, the point as well argued as it could have been. This alone makes it worth a good score, and better than it's place suggests. Yet I think you need to read such as Ken Wharton or you may end up blinkered and resentful. I hope you've also read or will read mine, and with an open and fully switched on mind as it will test your conceptual abilities.

Best wishes

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 07:42 GMT
Dear Peter,

Since my theory is based on Democritus ideas, I must remind some of his words: Democritus had said that questions of truth could not be decided by a majority vote. History abounds in cases where only one person was in possession of true knowledge in a certain field while all the rest were mistaken. Therefore I have doubts about the ''leading essay'' selected by a majority vote. In my view, this essay only has artistic value, but no scientific value, since it is filled with generally known Physics' information copied from textbooks and Internet.

Sincerely,

Constantin



peter replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 13:44 GMT
Constantin,

It is a surprise you write "information copied from textbooks and Internet" when you refer to other's essays, but it is you who uses to cite Wikipedia as your source, and have plenty of citations to yourself in your essay and almost no one else.

Could you please explain what exactly your sources are and what your theory is based on? Thanks.

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
Peter,

The contest was closed on March 15, but you have ''questions'' on Mar. 16? It means you are one of the ''offended authors'' where I found errors. OK, I can give you an answer.

My essay is based completely on original physics research, it contains the new description of motion and quantum phenomena. There are a few citations only from Wikipedia and references when I need links to modern science. In other words, my essay have no more than 5 - 10 percents of citations from references, therefore it is an original paper. In contrast, there are other papers with 90 percents of physics information copied from Internet. The paper with 90 percents of generally known physics information is NOT an original paper, it is ''information copied from textbooks and Internet''. I'm looking for the physics created by author but not information copied from textbooks.




Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 05:24 GMT
Dear Constantin,

As to the eclipse, it is not light which bends around the Sun but spacetime itself which is curved and affects the physical relation between the distant star and the observer. To the photon itself, its path would be perfectly straight if not for the fact that to the photon there is no path, no spacetime distance between the points it is transmitted. If to the photon itself...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 8, 2011 @ 19:12 GMT
Dear Anton,

The main error in your AB sketch is following: you mistakenly use the photon's frame of reference everywhere. It is true that the photon does not age, for a photon the time is frozen. However, you describe your experiment as if you are a photon: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''. Yes, for a photon time is frozen, but not for you. You are an observer who exist in a real spacetime and feel the time. Therefore for you the emission of photon, its voyage and its absorption is not a single event. Even if the time for photon is frozen, it travels the distance ct during the time t for YOU. Thus, your main mistake in this experiment is that you are in a photon's reference frame; Please try to imagine that you are the real Observer who exist, feel time an observe photons and all your paradoxes disappear at once. Therefore, all your next reasoning in this experiment also is mistaken because you imagine as if you are a photon.

''according to GR energy only is a source of gravity if and when it can be assigned a position'',''the energy of a (massive) particle likewise depends on the definiteness in its position''

This definition is your own invention, and it is wrong invention. According to your definition even massive particles cannot be the sources of gravity since their positions are not definite, according to Heisenberg.

''a photon cannot curve spacetime'' - it contradicts GR; the beam of light bends spacetime. The curvature is caused by the energy-momentum of matter.

''Though we can describe the propagation of light as if it has a velocity, we should keep in mind that it is a non-causal QM phenomenon''.

The propagation of light never violates causality. In contrast, the light signals are used as massagers of causality.

''so if we reject Absolute Time (as we must if we are to practice physics instead of metaphysics), then we should discard causality''.

There is no Absolute time, causality do not need Absolute time.

Regards,

Constantin



Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 18:04 GMT
Dear Anton,

I should add some reasoning against your AB sketch: You write: ''Its transmission doesn't consist of three separate, independent events, its emission, its voyage and its (accidental) absorption somewhere else, but is a single event''.

First of all, such events as the photon's emission and voyage never can be ''a single event'', it is logically and physically impossible. Besides, these three events can be a ''single event'' only if they coincides in space and time. However, actually these events coincide neither in space nor in time. You belive that these events ''coincide'' in time because you believe in the Absolute Time. Actually the flow of time depends on gravity and speed, therefore time flows differently from place to place. Therefore these three events are different events because they do not coincide in time and are spatially separated. Thus, it is a totally wrong statement.

Regards,

Constantin



Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 03:22 GMT
Dear Constantin,

You haven't read my essay and comments very careful since I have repeatedly argued why there can be no Absolute Time, why we should discard any such notion in physics. Also I do not look solely through the 'eyes' of a photon where I said that A (a massive particle) sees B's state change as soon as it emits the photon, just as B likewise sees A change the moment it absorbs...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 03:57 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Interesting theory of holes, and of the origin of quantum non-locality. I wonder if your idea of holes connects in any way with Dirac's hole theory.

Best regards,

Paul

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:04 GMT
Dear Paul,

Yes - Constantin and I have had similar conversations. My essay talks about the Dirac Sea, and I think it may be related to Constantin's quantum spacetime hole. One significant difference is that Constantin wants to use the spacetime hole for interstellar travel. Its a cool idea, but would require a scale crossover between a quantum Dirac Sea interpretation and a Cosmic Void interpretation.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 07:57 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern and Ray Munroe,

Theorists are looking for similarities between Hole Vacuum and other known theories like Dirac Sea, topological defects and so on. Nevertheless, I'm glad that the Hole Vacuum is a fundamentally new concept that does not repeat other known theories. The concept of Dirac sea does not allow teleportation and cannot explain gravity, inertia and quantum nonlocality. The Hole Vacuum is a better concept because it allows teleportation and can explain gravitation, inertia and quantum phenomena in the same model. Therefore I believe that the Hole Vacuum is a basis for more advanced future physics.

The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. The positron was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea. The Hole Vacuum is a sea of fluctuating spatial atoms and holes; A hole in spacetime appears when the spatial atom disappears. According to the theory, large holes are able to create electron-positron pairs and other particles.

Sincerely,

Constantin



Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 19:09 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Thanks for clarifying. I see the distinction between the Hole Vacuum and the Dirac Sea. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it.

Best wishes,

Paul

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 20:34 GMT
Dear Visitors,

There are two options: 1) you can vote for the extinction of humanity by suppressing the Hole Vacuum theory. 2) You can vote for the development of Science and Human Evolution by supporting this theory.

There have been at least five mass extinctions in the history of life on Earth. Earth may be doomed to a sixth major extinction event and Mankind is terribly at risk of going the way of the dinosaurs. Besides, astronomers predict that within a billion years, the Earth will no longer support life. Humans must colonize planets in other solar systems - traveling there using 'Star Trek' - style propulsion - or face extinction, Hawking said. It is impossible to transport humans to stars using rockets, we need a faster than light transportation system. I can prove that wormholes and Alcubierre warp drive are erroneous methods, the Hole Teleportation is the only safe method able to transport humans to stars. The beauty of Hole Teleportation is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. Sit inside a capsule, teleport to other side of the planet or the solar system in moments. No breaking the body down to molecules. If you support me then I'll be able to publish more papers. Some papers are very specific and can be created by me only. In the nearest future researchers will spend billions of dollars for investigations and experiments with Hole teleportation and the absence of these papers can worsen your future.

I saw the ''leading essay'', it is a simple discussion about physics, the author wrote ''though the universe itself has cleverly prevented us from determining whether or not it is continuous, I'd like to believe that it is''. It is not correct: the universe is fundamentally discontinuous. This essay cannot advance physics because it does not contain any advanced ideas. In contrast, my theory is a new direction in physics and technology. By voting against Hole Vacuum theory you may sign a death sentence for Mankind.

Constantin



Darth Sidious replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 15:49 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I think that you are only envious of the leading essay. Yours is not a theory, it is a collection of unscientific claims which may be turned into a science-fiction story after improving style, etc.

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 19:58 GMT
Dear Darth Sidious,

Usually envious people are not able to find any errors in the leading papers, they only can say that the paper is wrong or it is a collection of unscientific claims without any proofs: an example is your baseless declaration without any proofs. I never use your method to label the theory wrong without any proofs. In my view, you are the author of the essay where I found already errors. I attack other theories because I fight for new physics. I'm not agreeing to write everywhere ''it is an excellent essay''. The Physics is a battle of ideas; the criticism must be present in every theory. Because of criticism my page is attacked by people like you always because you want praise only. Also, I do not want to discuss these problems with an ghost from the Star Wars. Please show your true name if you want to discuss.



peter replied on Mar. 25, 2011 @ 14:19 GMT
But you don't accept any criticism and you have no proof or basis for your claims while you are neither in a position to evaluate anything nor you have found flaws in others. Your discussion is very amateur, how do you expect to discuss with real people something that is only scifi. Your basic reasoning is: get out of the universe, travel and come back whenever and wherever you want because you will be disembodied of any constraint once outside the universe and of course nobody can take that seriously. Why you don't do so and then come to me and explain me your theory in person, I can give you my coordinates.

report post as inappropriate


peter wrote on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 02:10 GMT
Please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)

And identify yourself.

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Mar. 19, 2011 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Readers,

Nobody found any errors in Hole Vacuum theory; This theory show consistence with experiments and observations:

1) The properties of vacuum holes coincide with the properties of gravity. According to theory a hole does not have the time and length because there is nothing outside of the Universe - no space, no time, no matter. Consequently if we increase the concentration of holes in spacetime then the time dilation and length contraction effects gradually must appear because in the limiting case, when space consists of holes only, the time and length would no longer exist. It is a logical deduction - since holes do not have length and time then near the source of holes must appear the time dilation and length contraction effects. The gravitational time dilation effect was proven experimentally using atomic clocks, therefore my theory show consistence with experiments and observations. In fact, the hole is the only ''particle'' in physics able to explain the gravitational time dilation and length contraction by its properties only. Since holes are able to explain gravity and quantum phenomena in the same model therefore it may indicate that Hole Theory may be the true theory of gravity.

2) According to hole theory, the appearance of holes led to ''vibration'' of particles and zero point energy. Liquid helium-4 remains liquid at atmospheric pressure even at absolute zero because holes cause its atoms to randomly vibrate. You see, Hole Theory shows consistence with experiments and observations. Also you can find other proofs in my essay and other my papers.

We can prove the existence of holes experimentally using two atomic clocks: if near the source of holes we detect time dilation then it is a proof that holes really exist. Hole Theory predicts also the fast fluctuation of geometry at small scales due to appearance of holes. Hole Theory predicts that we can increase De Broglie wavelength by increasing the number of holes acting in unison.

Thus, we can check experimentally the Hole theory.

Constantin




Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 11:17 GMT
Dr. Egal,

OK, since I attacked a lot of the essays in this contest therefore some offended scientists like Dr. Egals tries to find errors in my theory. You see, the attack is the best method to force other scientists to analyze my theory. Welcome Dr. Egal to the Hole Vacuum theory.

''you cannot create a theory in isolation''. Please show me an example of the rigorous theory in this...

view entire post




Anonymous replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 11:54 GMT
this post is a copy of my post above, please delete it.

report post as inappropriate

egal replied on Mar. 23, 2011 @ 00:17 GMT
Constantin,

You honestly speak so much nonsense that I find difficult where to start with.

For example, to say that all physical things have borders does not prove that the universe does have borders just as your hole theory cannot call holes everything you want to.

Math is useful in physics to agree on definitions and concepts, if you use your own definition of something continuos then go and convince someone that speaks your language. One of the first signs of people that has no knowledge at all (and who will never be taken seriously) is that they don't even speak the most basic language to communicate (and I'm not only talking about English or a human language, but I'm talking about basic concepts that everybody agrees upon except you).

That the border is a point? I think you have read topological texts without really knowing anything about it. Your theories sound very much as using results in topology (like the border as a point) such as the popular Riemann sphere that I'm sure you have heard about, yet you don't call things by their names and then use concepts just to try to make sense of your crazy theory. Really, take my advice, study a bit more, agree to call things at least with the names that everybody uses and then try to convince someone.

Have you even realized that by putting something in what you call the vacuum it makes that vacuum to be fill by what you have put in that place? So it is not longer vacuum, how would you disconnect something to the universe and put it in such holes? Basically you are suggesting to get out of our physical universe, travel, and get back wherever you want. I guess that's why you call it teleportation and has no basis whatsoever, yet you think it is unflawed and that you can even prove it experimentally.

Let's do an experiment to yourself, let's say that if you manage to succeed you set a date in which you will meet with yourself sometime in the future. If you don't find yourself you will know either that you never made it because you were dead wrong or because you didn't hear me and just kept spitting junk to everybody.

Just to finish, you assume that the universe has empty spaces as if it were a sacred truth (you are ready to accept some truths as sacred e.g. the cosmological principle that today is debatable yet you take other truths as junk and only purposely against your theory), yet physicists are not completely sure whether there are these empty spaces since they are trying to come up with models in which they can re-conciliate quantum mechanics and general relativity by assuming that there is something underlying space, hence not empty as you succinctly assume.

Btw, I don't see how your hole traveling is any different just to saying that someone can go to the 5th dimension, travel, and come back wherever you may want to.

report post as inappropriate

Constantin Leshan replied on Apr. 30, 2011 @ 05:21 GMT
Egal wrote: ''Compact spaces are spaces that can be covered with finite volumes yet they do not need to have an edge or border because you can approach asymptotically to it without never reaching the border such as in open spaces, e.g. the interval (0,1), finitely enclosed length with no edges''

1) In Hole Theory, the Universe is a mixture of holes, spatial atoms dV and particles. Therefore, this finite in volume Universe yet do not need to have a macroscopic edge and you may travel an infinite path without reaching any border because spacetime is curved by holes. We can call the holes as microscopic ''edges'' because it is the absolute void; Hence, we can call a hole ''edge' because it is not a part of the material Universe.

2) Compact spaces are mathematical spaces invented by mathematicians. However, the Universe is NOT composed of mathematical spaces. Hence, it is absurd to deny the new physical model of spacetime because it has different properties in comparison with a particular mathematical model. Mathematicians may create the new mathematical model of spacetime with holes and such model will have the microscopic edges.

3) I can introduce holes without using the notion of edge; for example the holes appear when spatial atoms appear and disappear. Finally, I can postulate the existence of holes as microscopic, virtual parts of absolute void. It is important that holes can explain gravitation and quantum phenomena but not the methods how we introduce holes. Thus, to prove the hole theory wrong you must prove that hole theory of gravitation, Hole Teleportation and my present quantum theory are wrong.

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 15:03 GMT
Dear Readers,

All knowledge claims should be open to rational criticism. And so many things need criticism as that is the only way innovation will once again enter these fields and allow mankind to progress. Many theories in physics still require clarification and the criticism allows us to save the money and research time by elimination of false theories. Too many so-called scientists refuse to admit that their precious theory might be wrong and they go so far as to fudge the results of their experiments. These people are not scientists at all.

In my view, the essay contest is a scientific event where scientists are learning about, and criticizing, each others' work. It helps us to verify true theories and to falsify false theories. However some scientists like ''egal'' are afraid of criticism, and they try to take revenge and insult. He wrote: ''you will have to live the rest of your life with what you have written everywhere in this contest''. You see, ''egal'' wants revenge for my critisizm. Meanwhile I can demonstrate that all his claims are wrong (below).

I know that some scientists consider my theory wrong and vice versa, I consider some theories wrong in this contest. Hence, let's analyze each others' work without insults and revenge.

Constantin



peter replied on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 19:48 GMT
I think egal has not insulted you, he just pointed out with his comment "'you will have to live the rest of your life with what you have written everywhere in this contest''" that you may regret to have written what you have had repeatedly in this contest. You will not win anything with that attitude but more enemies. Science is not only objective (which by the way you are far from it with all kind of personal remarks about people all the time) but it is also about a human enterprise where people have to be open and listen each other. One has also to have a minimal level of understanding of current developments to convince someone else instead of blaming everybody to be fake and false, except you of course. And then claiming that you will save humanity because you have found teleportation… If you someday apply for a grant and the referees google you they will certainly not take you serious, so you are acting against your own will, that makes me think of your holes =)

report post as inappropriate


egal wrote on Mar. 24, 2011 @ 20:04 GMT
Concerning Constantin's claim that I am a ghost and his complains that people don't want to discuss with him using real names, that is very understandable and nowhere in the contest rules nor in the Internet it is an obligation to reveal one's name simply because, as it has been said, one uses real names for serious stuff but it is a shame that Constantin does not learn from what people in good faith tell him and advice him to go first read and learn before writing gibberish.

Administrator: If you will delete this post because I say that this essay is gibberish, please do delete all Constantin's posts saying that all essays are fake, crap or even plagiarism (see his post saying that most essays are 90% copy/paste from Internet source posted by Constantin on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT in reply to peter) which is a serious accusation that is often even sued in lawsuit.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 07:56 GMT
''most essays are 90% copy/paste from Internet source''

It is a lie; I say nothing about copy/paste. I wrote about ''papers with 90 percents of Physics information copied from Internet'' and I had explained what it means on Corda's page. I talk about Generally known information or knowledge in physics; for example, the Extended Theories of Gravity, gravitation waves, history of science is physics information or knowledge in physics. For example if you tell about General Relativity, it is not original information because Einstein is the author but not you; even if you change the words, it is the knowledge in physics copied from Internet. I don't say about copy/paste of words but about use of generally known knowledge in physics. It is true that many papers was filled with generally known physics knowledge COPIED from other sources because they are NOT authors of General relativity, quantum mechanics and so on. For example, if you create the new model of gravity then it is a new knowledge that is not copied. Hence if the author tells us about the generally known information from textbooks about GR then we can consider it is a copied physics information or knowledge in physics.

''in good faith tell him and advice him''

I don't need your advices because I saw your wrong essay and your publication list.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 08:05 GMT
Dear Readers,

Nobody found errors in this theory. If anyone has specific questions about PHYSICS in this essay, please ask, and I will try to answer them. I'm not talking with ghosts and people that tries to insult me. I discuss the Physics Questions only.

The pseudonyms ''peter, egal, sidios'' appeared on my page because I criticized the precious essay of a ''very important'' scientist who need money for his new family. Can you guess who it is? I saw the same attacks in the previous 2010 contest. In 2010, I criticized Dr. Corda's essay after that he attacked furiously my pages. Now we have the same picture - recently I criticized Dr. Corda's essay after that my page has been attacked. Therefore I have a suspicion that ''peter'', ''egal'' and ''Sidious'' are Dr. Corda's pseudonyms because Dr. Corda only attacked my page in 2010 in a similar manner. In my view, I'm the first person that criticizes his work. However, his essay is the description of unsuccessful attempt to understand gravity. Also I don't found any important scientific discoveries in Dr. Corda's publication list.

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan, dears Readers, dear Administrators

I have been forced to cut in on this cheerless conversation because a friend of mine informed me that Mr. Leshan insists in involve me in his lowest brawls.

Thus, and I this is REALLY my first and last intervention in Mr. Leshan's page, I clarify what follows:

1) I am NOT "peter", "egal" and "Sidious" even if I have a suspicion on who "Sidious" could be.

2) Even if it is true that in the previous Essay Contest I attacked Mr. Leshan page, I realized that it was an error. Now I am absolutely sure that people like Mr. Leshan have to be totally ignored.

3) I am not interested in Mr. Leshan's Essay and in Mr. Leshan's research, I decided to read the Essays in the order of the Community Rating, thus, as Mr. Leshan Essay is number 157, it will be almost impossible for me to arrive to read Mr. Leshan's Essay.

THAT IS ALL, THUS, PLEASE MR. LESHAN STOP TO FURTHER BORE ME BY TRYING TO INVOLVE ME IN YOUR BRAWLS, I AM NOT INTERESTED.

Yours sincerely,

Christian Corda

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Mar. 27, 2011 @ 12:43 GMT
P. S.

The squalid comment by Mr. Leshan on my family does not deserve reply.

P. P. S.

In any case, I am very honoured for the new attacks by Mr. Leshan. It is well known that Mr. Leshan is a person who, as the Scientific Community rejects his strange theories, attacks recognized results. This means that I wrote a good Essay, thus, dear Mr. Leshan, THANKS A LOT!!!

report post as inappropriate


Robert Spoljaric wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 10:11 GMT
Dear Constantin,

I am a little confused about your logic.

“The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of everything that exists, including all matter and spacetime.” This implies the existence of the Universe is Absolute. And “Consequently, outside the Universe is nothing in an absolute sense” implies the Universe exists Relative to nothing, that is, its existence is Absolute.

Kindest regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 17:15 GMT
Dear Robert

Thanks for the comments. The Universe is all matter that exists and outside of the Universe is nothing. It implies the Universe exists Relative to itself. The matter exists relative to matter. We can exist inside of the Universe only.

Also, I don't see any sense in the statements: 1) This implies the existence of the Universe is Absolute. 2) Or, this implies the existence of the Universe is not Absolute

Regards,

Constantin



Robert Spoljaric replied on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Constantin,

Sorry I should have defined what I meant.

By ‘Absolute’ I mean self-existent and conceivable without relation to other things, and so ‘Relative’ means ‘not-Absolute’. Your first statement implies the Universe is Absolute and conceivable without relation to other things. However, the idea of ‘outside’ in your second statement means the Universe is Relative because it exists in relation to ‘nothing’. But unless you can demonstrate how ‘nothing’ can be ‘something’, the Universe is Absolute and the idea of ‘outside’ is meaningless.

Kind regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 11:14 GMT
Your speculations about the idea of 'outside' in my second statement are wrong: The idea of 'outside' in my second statement do NOT lead to the conclusions like "the Universe is Absolute or Relative because it exists in relation to "nothing." Where you found such erroneous statement? The modern science does not contain such statement and my theory does not contain such statement. Please show me the source of information or references where you found the statements about Absolute and Relative Universe ''exists in relation to other things''. Perhaps it is your own idea that contradicts modern science and contradicts my theory. Therefore, you cannot use this erroneous statement about Absolute-Relative Universe to prove or disprove physical theories. Also I can introduce holes without using the statement 'outside of the Universe'. In this case, your argument about ''the Universe is Absolute'' is outside of our discussion; please invent other arguments.

2) If you are not happy with the notion ''outside of the Universe'' then I can introduce holes by using the notion of quantized vacuum. The Quantized Spacetime is made of fluctuating spatial atoms dV, which appear, and disappear continually. If the spatial atom disappears, instead appears the vacant place. Since dV (spacetime) disappeared, it mean this vacant place is a hole in spacetime without extent and time.

3) If you are not happy with the previous introduction of vacuum holes then I can postulate the existence of holes without any introductions; this method uses many theories to introduce new particles and concepts. It is important that a hole is a very useful 'object' in physics because it can explain teleportation, gravitation and quantum phenomena. In this case, your arguments are outside of discussion. The hole theory of gravitation has been checked by Soros Foundation and published in the peer reviewed mainstream Journal. Thus, it is important the existence of holes in Hole Theory of Gravitation but not how we introduce holes.

4) You wrote about ''the Universe is Absolute or Relative''. Even if the ''Universe is Absolute or Relative'', as you write, it proves nothing. Even if the Universe ''exists in relation to ''nothing'' or something, it proves nothing. The Universe is Matter; Matter move and interact with Matter; vacuum holes are Gravitation that mediates the interaction between material bodies. Therefore your statement ''the Universe is Relative because it exists in relation to ''nothing'' is totally wrong.

Regards,

Constantin




peter wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 05:31 GMT
As simple as this. Do you agree time is part of the universe right? So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?

No, particles may not have edges, I remind you that particles also behave as waves... Plus, you avoid all the theory that doesn't fit your little nonsense theory, for example, Hilbert space. Particle touch each other? space between particles? you only use the part of the theory that better suits you to come up with nonsense claims.

Sure, you will reply saying: 'show me a physical object with no borders' I'm doing it! Then you will say 'wrong' and you will wrap up with 'senseless', you are so predictable...

report post as inappropriate

Robert Spoljaric replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 11:37 GMT
Dear Peter,

I have done my very best (to no avail) to show Constantin that his use of ‘nothing’ is self-contradictory.

The non-contradictory way to reason with ‘nothing’ ironically leaves nothing of Constantin’s theory:

If a volume of spacetime COULD disappear it would leave nothing, hence a volume of spacetime CANNOT disappear. Equally if ‘outside’ the Universe is nothing, then the Universe has no ‘outside’.

Regards,

Robert

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 21:38 GMT
peter (Dr. Corda),

Since you are not able to prove my theory wrong then stop using the unproven declarations like ''nonsense'', without any proofs.

''So tell us Constantin, where does a second end and a new one starts?''

We talked with Robert about borders. How I can prove for Robert that all finite in volume objects must have borders? For this purpose, I INVENT different...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 22:07 GMT
Dear Robert Spoljaric,

You write: ''If a volume of spacetime COULD disappear it would leave nothing, hence a volume of space-time CANNOT disappear''. It is not correct statement. Maybe you'll forbid the motion of air molecules because a molecule continually leaves its place and create a hole (a place without air molecules). The hole vacuum is a similar phenomenon - the dV continually leaves its place and create holes. Robert, if you forbid the motion of dV then you'll obtain the static ether or aether. The elementary volumes dV cannot move mechanically because the background space-time does not exist. These dV can move by jumping only. In addition, please read again my essay - It is the main statement of Hole Theory that ALL particles appear and disappear continually. You cannot forbid the main statement (postulate) of Hole Theory without any reasons. Also I can show you a lot of phenomena where particles create holes, for example the electric current: an electron leaves the atom and creates a ''hole''.

You write: ''Equally if ''outside'' the Universe is nothing, then the Universe has no ''outside''

It is a wrong statement because the opposite is wrong; If ''outside'' the Universe is something, then the Universe has no ''outside.'' Yes, if ''outside'' the Universe is something then this something is the part of the Universe and the Universe cannot have borders. Therefore, your statement is self-contradictory and wrong; You see, the opposite to your statement also don't allow the border. The Universe can have the border only if ''outside'' the Universe is nothing because the ''nothing'' is not a part of the Universe. Thus, my statement is correct.

You see, all your questions are wrong. To prove my introduction of holes wrong you must find an example of body with finite volume WITHOUT BORDERS.

Regards,

Constantin




Dr. Cosmic Ray wrote on Apr. 4, 2011 @ 13:35 GMT
Dear Constantin,

If a cosmic-scaled quantum hole did exist, how would it affect the topology of spacetime? Certainly we see cosmic-scaled structure - great "voids" and "clusters", but a cosmic-scaled quantum hole should be different from a cosmic void - you shouldn't be able to "see" through it (because nothing exists for electromagnetic radiation to travel through). Would we have any sort of "spacetime lensing"? Considering the relationship between gravity and spacetime curvature this may be similar to the opposite of gravitational lensing because any sort of cosmic-scaled quantum hole must have an effective boundary curvature.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate

Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Apr. 5, 2011 @ 07:40 GMT
Dear Dr. Cosmic Ray,

If a cosmic-scaled quantum hole did exist, it must bend spacetime in the same way as a massive body. I agree, you shouldn't be able to "see" through a cosmic-scaled quantum hole (because nothing exists for electromagnetic radiation to travel through). However, this cosmic-scaled quantum hole must collapse as soon as possible because it is the absolute void. Hence, the lifetime of the cosmic-scaled quantum hole is very short because it collapses with the speed of light. In addition, the hole possesses energy therefore the hole's collapse looks as a big explosion. About "spacetime lensing" - it is very difficult to observe the "spacetime lensing" because the hole's lifetime is very short. In my view, such large holes can be associated with extremely energetic explosions that have been observed in distant galaxies as flashes of gamma rays (Gamma-ray bursts).

Sincerely,

Constantin




Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on Apr. 13, 2011 @ 11:33 GMT
Dear Readers,

Please help me to prove and develop the new transportation technology - Hole Teleportation

The Hole Theory has been published in peer reviewed Journals; Hole Teleportation is mentioned in Teleportation Physics Study. According to the theory, the radius of Hole Teleportation is 13 billions light years. The beauty of Hole Teleportation is NO EXOTIC MATTER, which means no messing around with hypothetical methods of creating the stuff. It is the fast and safe transportation technology. I need support to develop this theory. Without support, the Hole Teleportation theory will die.

To start the experimental investigation of Hole Teleportation we should be able to create and detect the holes in spacetime. We can prove (detect) experimentally the existence of holes by help of two atomic clocks. If the atomic clocks placed near the source of holes tick slower then it will be the proof that holes really exist. In addition, we can detect holes by observing the interaction of holes with elementary particles. I have ideas how to create the solid-state generator of holes. It may start the development of new transportation technology based on Hole Teleportation. I'm looking for other methods of detection and creation of holes but I need support.

If you do not support me then you LOSE this transportation technology for next 50 - 100 years; Some scientists have tried to write papers about Hole Teleportation but I have found errors in their papers. I'm the only author who published important papers about Hole Teleportation. If you support me then I will be able to publish important papers about Hole Teleportation.

Please save the Hole Teleportation!

Constantin Leshan



Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan replied on Apr. 14, 2011 @ 10:19 GMT
Our entire future is presently tied to this one, small planet Earth. If a global catastrophe ever befell Earth, whether by natural causes or our own actions, humanity would end. Imagine what it would be like to have another Earth-like planet within our reach. It would be a place where humanity could continue if a global catastrophe ever befell Earth.

An example is FUKUSHIMA: Radiation Levels In The Ocean Hit A Dangerous New High. The highest yet levels of radioactive iodine-131 were detected in a sample of seawater near the fukushima plant on Thursday morning. Concentration was 4,385 times the legal limit, up from 3,355 times on Tuesday, according to Kyodo. In response, the government has pledged to increase radiation monitoring on land and by sea and to consider increasing the evacuation zone. Imagine that all the Earth is the evacuation zone due to unavoidable disaster, asteroid attack or nuclear poluation. The best illustration of this is the city of Pripyat near Chernobyl in Ukraine, which was abandoned after the nuclear disaster 20 years ago and remains deserted.

Imagine that all the people on Earth - all 6.5 billion of us and counting, could be transported to another habitable planet in a far-off galaxy. Curently we don't have that kind of technology that all people can be evacuated from Earth where we will go. We need the new transportation technology as Hole Teleportation which is able to send the original body at distance 13 billions light years. For teleportation we must create the holes in spacetime. It is very easy to create holes; for example your computer is a source of holes; I want to create the solid-state generator of holes to realize the Hole Teleportation.

Perhaps the doomsday asteroid is on its way to Earth (or disaster due to mankind mistakes, nuclear holocausts, climate change, ozone layer depletion, etc. We need the new, fast and safe transportation technology to reach other habitable planet. Please support the Hole Teleportation. To start the experimental investigation of Hole Teleportation we must demonstrate that holes really exist. In my view, the cost of this experiment is ~ 15.000 USD. If we show holes experimentally, it may start the investigation of Hole Teleportation around the world.

Constantin Leshan




doom's day wrote on Apr. 16, 2011 @ 14:25 GMT
cute dreamer

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 17, 2011 @ 08:28 GMT
Why do not you create the new teleportation theory? If you try to create a similar theory then you will understand that it is impossible. I am sure that you never created any original physics theory. The envious people like you that deny all new theories (without any proofs) are dangerous for science. Science needs new ideas and theories. People like you can only impede progress and science.

report post as inappropriate

dreamer replied on Apr. 21, 2011 @ 17:31 GMT
dreamer

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Apr. 23, 2011 @ 18:15 GMT
Do you have any proofs?

report post as inappropriate


Author Constantin Zaharia Leshan wrote on May. 16, 2011 @ 08:10 GMT
According to Einstein's General Relativity, ''gravity'' is just another name for the geometry of space and time. Einstein himself said that so far as his general relativity is concerned, space-time and the gravitational field are the SAME THINGS. The Hole Theory meets this requirement - spacetime is made of dV and holes, and gravitation also is a hole phenomenon.

The Journal Vertical News wrote: "Research from C. Leshan and Colleagues Provide New Insights into Physics

According to a study from Moldova, ''Matter interacts with space-time holes and emits a flux of ''its own'' holes which curve the space-time; it is a cause of gravitation.'' ''Every planetary body, including the Earth, is surrounded by clouds of holes, which curve the space-time and exert an attractive force on all objects. The vacuum hole is the only ''particle'' in physics able to explain the time dilation and length contraction (the curvature of space-time) by its properties," wrote C. Leshan and colleagues.

The researchers concluded : "This theory allows creation of artificial gravity by producing holes in the space-time.''

Since holes can describe the gravitation, inertia and quantum phenomena in the same model, it is the base for future theory of Quantum Gravity. We must create the mathematical model of Hole Theory like Einstein field equations. I have some ideas how to do it and I'm looking for mathematicians for joint work to study the ''Hole version of Quantum Gravity''.

Constantin Leshan



journal replied on May. 19, 2011 @ 18:29 GMT
Vertical News is not a journal, you cannot be serious trying to justify your research citing an online news website and calling it a journal... Sorry.

report post as inappropriate

journal replied on May. 20, 2011 @ 21:50 GMT
You are wrong, if this is only a dubious news website one cannot even know if the website is run by you, your friends or even family. Of course the opinion value of a third party is as valuable as its own reputation. If you need to make recourse of an unknown web news web page to support your theory with additionally the purpose to make believe people that it is a journal is because you haven't been able to convince any honest scientist, and unlike you, I think there are many scientists, you just have to find a couple respectable ones to endorse your pseudo theory of science fiction.

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.