Search FQXi

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, SubMeta, and Scientific American

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

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

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 Fund.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

doug: on 11/29/12 at 1:42am UTC, wrote Does this coroborate in any way CIG Theory, wherein traveling Mass turns to...

douglas william lipp: on 11/28/12 at 12:55pm UTC, wrote Try the CIG Theory approach to resolve the great mystery of Dark Energy. ...

agorabiz: on 11/27/12 at 12:23pm UTC, wrote Dark Energy is the great mystery in the universe today.Scientists only have...

Jin He: on 10/5/12 at 16:14pm UTC, wrote Dear Christian Corda, Thanks for your rating. But that does not work. The...

Christian Corda: on 10/5/12 at 12:34pm UTC, wrote Thanks my dear Jin. I am going to read and rate your Essay too. Cheers, ...

Jin He: on 10/5/12 at 12:00pm UTC, wrote I rate yours 10.

Christian Corda: on 10/5/12 at 8:21am UTC, wrote Hi Cristi, Thanks for condolances for Darryl. He was an excellent person...

Christian Corda: on 10/4/12 at 18:52pm UTC, wrote Dear Avtar, I have just read,commented and rated your interesting Essay. ...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jim Snowdon: "Its the cognitive grasp of the Earths rotational motion! Our conscious..." in The Nature of Time

Jim Snowdon: "Steve, The science is simple. Embrace the non-existence of..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Dufourny: "Hi, Esa, Nasa, WB, UN ,All governments, the royal famillies, the..." in Global Collaboration

Nicholas hosein: "Iwrote the above when I had perfect clarity." in Good Vibrations

Steve Dufourny: "Dr Chiang, I am understanding. These quars , antiquarks, gluons personally..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Kwan Chiang: "Hi Steve, I didn’t get involve with quarks and gluons too much, because..." in Anatomy of spacetime and...

Nicholas hosein: "This bears some resemblance to my statement from 2014 on these forums,..." in Reconstructing Physics

Nicholas hosein: "Everything is observer dependent?" in Good Vibrations

RECENT ARTICLES

Good Vibrations
Microbead 'motor' exploits natural fluctuations for power.

Reconstructing Physics
New photon experiment gives new meta-framework, 'constructor theory,' a boost.

The Quantum Engineer: Q&A with Alexia Auffèves
Experiments seek to use quantum observations as fuel to power mini motors.

The Quantum Clock-Maker Investigating COVID-19, Causality, and the Trouble with AI
Sally Shrapnel, a quantum physicist and medical practitioner, on her experiments into cause-and-effect that could help us understand time’s arrow—and build better healthcare algorithms.

Connect the Quantum Dots for a New Kind of Fuel
'Artificial atoms' allow physicists to manipulate individual electrons—and could help to reduce energy wastage in electronic devices.

FQXi FORUM
January 23, 2022

CATEGORY: Questioning the Foundations Essay Contest (2012) [back]
TOPIC: Black Holes or Anything Else? by C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. J. Mosquera Cuestra, S. Robertson, and R. E. Schild [refresh]

Author Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 10:56 GMT
Essay Abstract

What does it happen if we assume that the strong principle of equivalence is a a law of Nature in the universe and some conditions of the famous singularity theorems are violated? The answer is intriguing as we argue that black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities. Our analysis represents a key point within the debate on the path to unification of theories. As recently some scientists partially retrieved the old Einstein's opinion that quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework.

Author Bio

Darryl Jay Leiter, February 25, 1937 - March 4, 2011, obtained his Ph.D. in theoretical physics, from Brandeis University, being the latest Ph.D. of Nathan Rosen. He taught at Boston College, the University of Windsor, Central Michigan University, and George Mason University, and received numerous research grants, including two senior fellowships at NASA. In recent years he was a faculty member in the Bachelor of Interdisciplinary Studies Program at the University of Virginia. Together with other colleagues, he evolved an alternate explanation of black holes, the theory of MECOs or magnetic eternally collapsing objects.

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
My condolences for your colleagues Darryl Jay Leiter,

Are you agree with my abstract?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 06:52 GMT
Hi Yury,

Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 12:47 GMT
Christian

I hope you find time to read not only abstract but completely all essay.

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:02 GMT
OK Yuri,

I am going to read it.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson wrote on Sep. 4, 2012 @ 18:02 GMT
Christian et al.

Congratulations on an excellent re-appraisal of Black Hole theory, which as Rudy knows (and you from last year) is very consistent with my own work on DFM toriod AGN's.

You may wish to read the parallel Benedict essay. I felt deja vu reading yours after my recent comments on that blog. I can only add, as discussed previously, that the AGN model should be a continuous helical, so toroidal, em Tokamak form, and the ejection (of 'primordial plasma' as you say) is 'quasar' jets and the cause of the anomalous re-ionization of matter, which I proposed to Rudy is focussed at z=1.7. My comments also extended to the redshift question, where the receding matter is taken out of the visible spectrum to the IR).

I found your NLED Lagrangian link interesting and informative, and I wonder if you see the same connection as I do to Ken Warton's excellent essay. It is worth seeking out. As you know I've also been analysing non-linear optics effects wrt deriving the SR postulates from the quanta.

My own essay indeed establishes that the strong equivalence principle is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM. I hope you'll read it and comment.

Yours is I believe a very important essay with some important quantification I have been seeking for some time. Well done and thanks. I look forward to your comments on mine.

Best of luck. and regards to Rudy.

Peter

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:23 GMT
Hi Peter,

Nice to see you in our Essay-page.

Thanks for congratulations, I am going to read the parallel Benedict Essay. I will read Ken Warton's Essay too.

I think that it is quite important that NLED Lagrangian is endorsed by observations on the gravitational redshift on compact objects like

pulsars and neutron stars.

I am going to read your Essay with a lot of interest. In fact, it is a very good issue that SPOE is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Don Limuti wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 02:45 GMT
Dear Physicists,

I do believe you are investigating a theory (singularities in black holes) that has been accepted without question for too long.

However you made my day with your last paragraph: " As recently some scientists, like the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft [8], partially retrieved the old Einstein's opinion [7] that quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory "

Yes, it is about time that this is happening!

I have recently stumbled across the Schwarzschild radius' in two unexpected places:

1. Particles attain this radius when they are accelerated to near the speed of light. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403

2. If you use estimates of the mass of the universe (include dark energy) and solve for r in: r = 2Gm/c^2 you get a number that corresponds to estimates of the radius of the universe. Coincidence? See post of Ioannis Hadjidakis in my essay blog.

Don L.

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 08:34 GMT
Hi Don,

I totally agree with your Einstenian point of view on determinism in Science.

Concerning the points that you raise:

1. I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

2. I well know that the Universe's gravitational radius is of order of the Hubble lenght. I do not think that it is a coincidence.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

doug replied on Nov. 29, 2012 @ 01:42 GMT
Does this coroborate in any way CIG Theory, wherein traveling Mass turns to Space?

CIG offered a very crude countercheck of the validity CUPI quantification, came up with about the size of the Universe. It is also deterministic.

Is CIG Theory correct? www.CIGTheory..com

THX

doug

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 5, 2012 @ 13:08 GMT
Are you agree with John Moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 14:04 GMT
Dear Yuri,

I know Moffat's proposal only partially. Hence, I cannot judge it.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
My essay close to Mofatt proposal

I see the Universe only this way

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

report post as inappropriate

Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 22:41 GMT
Dear Christian,

I have enjoyed your essay about the Black Hole riddle. I have had the occasion to attend several 't Hooft talk recently. Besides his study of black hole he also trying to achieve a deterministic formulation of quantum field theory, with some background common ideas. I would like to drawn your attention to my essay in which I have re-elaborate 't Hooft basic idea of determinism obtaining extremely interesting results for a unified description of physics. The idea can be extended to describe black-holes, though I do not mention that in my essay. In particular, by considering that every elementary particle is a reference clock, it is possible to face the black-hole riddle in a very original way, with interesting corresponding with your idea.

Best regards,

Donatello

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:10 GMT
Hi Donatello,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I am surely going to read your Essay. Determinism against uncertainity is, perhaps, the most fascinating issue of Modern Science. I agree with you and 't Hooft on Einstein's idea that "God does not play dice with the universe." Hence, the vision of the Copenaghen's School on the world cannot be final.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan replied on Sep. 10, 2012 @ 07:25 GMT
Does God play Dice?

Yes,but when He play, always falls the same 3:1

http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/946

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny wrote on Sep. 6, 2012 @ 23:33 GMT

Hello Dr Corda,

Happy to see you again. I liked your essay.It is a beautiful extrapolation.

That said, I askme why the gravitation is not inserted. My equations are relevant considering the volumes and the correlated mass of the analyzed sphere, here the BH.The rotations can be calculated. The singularities are central codes.So of course it is difficult to...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 09:16 GMT
Hi Steve,

Notice that, actually, the gravitation is indeed inserted in our Essay. In fact, in pages 8-9 we develop an EXACT solution of Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational collapse which is NOT singular.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate
The spherical Jedi. replied on Sep. 7, 2012 @ 13:52 GMT
hello ,

You are welcome.

But you know,I have not put an essay, like all the years.Do you see an essay from me? People superimpose the algorythms for their strategy!!!

Dr Corda, My Pc and my net are very bizare.People checks my pc.

ps the eisntein field equation is optimizerd with my equations E=m(c³o³s³) and mcosV=const.

The collapse is not singular, so the bosonic correlation is relevant with the general relativity.The sense of rotations Dr Corda.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:19 GMT
Dear Spherical Jedi,

Sorry, I misunderstood your previous message by thinking that your comment were present in an Essay that you put in this contest.

Notice that your solution is non-singular without rotations.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 22:08 GMT
Hello Dr Corda,

I have difficulties to resume my works :) But the most important is to improve it.So I continue to learn and to share.

The gravitational collapse is an extrapolation of the mind. The singularities are so numerous.In fact all is singular in its pure meaning, so the central sphere of all entanglement, ultim. I agree so about your words, it is very relevant even, because...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 08:54 GMT
Dear Corda,

You study the black holes using the general relativity. But in general relativity there is a problem - absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself. Covariant theory of gravitation has no such problem. It is interesting could you repeat your calculation in this theory and what result there may be? In my opinion black holes are impossible in nature.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:25 GMT
Dear Sergey G. Fedosin,

Actually, the absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself is not a problem. Indeed it is a consequence of Equivalence Principle which is today tested with a precision of 10^-13. For Equivalence Principle we cannot localize the energy of the gravitational field as we can always choice a reference frame, i.e. the frame of a free falling observer, where the gravitational field is null. Hence, the stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself does not exist.

Best wishes,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N. wrote on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 16:17 GMT
Dear Dr. Corda,

Thanks for your nice and logically written essay. But,I feel,you have touched the Black-Hole (BH) from outside and seems to be afraid of going inside it inorder to know what happens there. If you are really interested in knowing it,please,go through my essay and express your comments in my forum (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.).I also found an interesting issue in your essay regarding applying 'special relativistic effects' to BHs' horizons.I,too,have an interesting concept to be applied to special relativity (SR). i.e.,the concept of minimum velocity to SR. This has far reaching consequences on it. For example, it restricts the maximum increase in the relativistic mass and energy and at the same time it restricts minimum decrease in temporal duration and contraction of measuring rod.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 9, 2012 @ 20:27 GMT
Dear Sreenath B N.,

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 12:32 GMT
Christian,

I had never really thought of the principle of equivalence as other than a general physical law. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems are existence theorems, after all, so should not be an absolute barrier to the singularity-free theory of gravity that Einstein sought.

Therefore, I appreciate your view that restores relativity to its primary role in fundamental physics -- nice job. I take a different approach to the same goal (my essay, "The Perfect First Question"), in showing that the result of every measurement function continuous from an initial condition is nondegenerate near the singularity. So in any physical sense, the singularity is a fictitious calculational artifact without independent reality -- and, consistent with Wheeler's information-theoretic view, the source of all information is a point at infinity.

Best wishes in the contest! Your dedication to a deceased colleague is heartwarming.

Tom

report post as inappropriate
The Spherical Jedi replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:29 GMT
Hi Tom,

It is me the parano.:) I am not really ok with your words.Why a point at infinity for the singularities.It is not foundamental at my humble opinion. The serie of uniqueness is a finite group. It is not a fictional calculation. It is a real road towards this singularity.

Now I can agree if we considering the source with the adds or multiplications.But not for our uniqueness number. It is not rational considering the encoding of these informations. If these informations are correlated with the central spheres.So the volumes of stability become very important and very relevant. So the main central sphere are the most important volume for the two 3d scales ,at the walls. It is relevant for these singularities and the singularity.I beleive that the informations must be classified with these volumes. With the prime number 1 like the main code. If we interpret the infinity, the infinities and the finite groups without a real universal spherical domains, so it becomes moredifficult for the real quantization of this mass.This mass is a coded system in evolution with sortings and synchros. The volumes, I am repeating, are essential.

Wheeler is relevant about the informations but the domain of taxonomy of infinities , constants,....must be rational about these sortings and synchros.Correlated with these spherical volumes of this universal serie of uniqueness. It is relevant also when we consider the same number of uniqueness for the cosmological number of spheres and the quantum number of spheres of this finite group.

The informations are an interesting subject in all case. The main central spheres are the secret of main codes. The fermions polarize the informations and the bosonic complementarity.Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:23 GMT
Hi Tom,

Thanks for your kind words. Actually, the dedication to Darry Leiter has been right and proper. He was a great scientist and lots of ideas on our Essay are due by him. In fact, last year I promised to his widow that such ideas would be used to realize an Essay for this Contest.

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Thomas Howard Ray replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 18:22 GMT
Hi Steve,

"Without finite groups for the quantization, it is not possible to reach these singularities.

What do you think Tom ?"

This is the only part of your post that I understand, and I think you're right. That's why my model is finite in space and unbounded in time -- i.e., a continuously evolving wave function is infinitely quantized and so not quantized at all. This is perfectly consistent with general relativity -- except that GR, conventionally interpreted as finite in time and unbounded in space, cannot avoid the singularity, and this model must.

Best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Donatello Dolce wrote on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 14:09 GMT
Hi Christian,

thank you for rating my essay Elementary Time Cycles

As I wrote above, your idea is also intriguing, as well as 't Hooft studies on black holes.

It has fundamental relations with my description of elementary system as periodic phenomena, though this is link is not trivial and it is not mentioned in my essay. I hope we will find occasion to share our ideas. I have given you positive rating as you deserve.

Good luck to you,

Donatello

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 11, 2012 @ 15:30 GMT
Hi Donatello,

Thanks for giving us positive rating.

I also hope that we will find occasion to share our ideas.It will be quite interesting as I think that such ideas should arise from a common "Einstenian" point of view.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh wrote on Sep. 13, 2012 @ 22:42 GMT
Dear Christian:

My paper -“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe” strongly vindicates the conclusion of your paper - “….black holes could have a different nature with respect the common belief. In fact, even remaining very compact astrophysics objects, they could be devoid of horizons and singularities…….quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory, a way to find solutions to the problem of black hole horizons and singularities at a semi-classical level, i.e. without discussions of quantum gravity, becomes a fundamental framework.”

My paper even goes further in describing a detailed model of the missing physics of spontaneous decay based on the above suggested framework and successfully predicts the observed data at all scales from below Planck scale to beyond cosmological scales. The proposed model not only resolves black hole singularities but also the unresolved paradoxes of physics and cosmology. It also explains the inner workings of QM and eliminates its inconsistencies with relativity.

I would greatly appreciate your comments on my paper. You can contact me at avsingh@alum.mit.edu.

Best of Luck and Regards

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 14, 2012 @ 06:28 GMT
Dear Avtar,

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Avtar Singh replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:08 GMT
Dear Christian:

Did you get a chance to read my paper --“ From Absurd to Elegant Universe” and provide any comments?

Thanks

Avtar Singh

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:52 GMT
Dear Avtar,

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Yuri Danoyan wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 00:53 GMT
Intersting!

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.
pdf

report post as inappropriate

Hoang cao Hai wrote on Sep. 19, 2012 @ 16:01 GMT
Dear

Very interesting to see your essay.

Perhaps all of us are convinced that: the choice of yourself is right!That of course is reasonable.

So may be we should work together to let's the consider clearly defined for the basis foundations theoretical as the most challenging with intellectual of all of us.

Why we do not try to start with a real challenge is very close and are the focus of interest of the human science: it is a matter of mass and grain Higg boson of the standard model.

Knowledge and belief reasoning of you will to express an opinion on this matter:

You have think that: the Mass is the expression of the impact force to material - so no impact force, we do not feel the Higg boson - similar to the case of no weight outside the Earth's atmosphere.

Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?

The LHC particle accelerator used to "Smashed" until "Ejected" Higg boson, but why only when the "Smashed" can see it,and when off then not see it ?

Can be "locked" Higg particles? so when "released" if we do not force to it by any the Force, how to know that it is "out" or not?

You are should be boldly to give a definition of weight that you think is right for us to enjoy, or oppose my opinion.

Because in the process of research, the value of "failure" or "success" is the similar with science. The purpose of a correct theory be must is without any a wrong point ?

Glad to see from you comments soon,because still have too many of the same problems.

Regards !

Hải.Caohoàng of THE INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS AND A CORRECT THEORY

August 23, 2012 - 11:51 GMT on this essay contest.

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda wrote on Sep. 20, 2012 @ 07:30 GMT
Dear Hoang Cao Hai ,

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Sep. 22, 2012 @ 19:31 GMT
Dear Christian,

I welcome your essay that is untraditional approach to BH. I have read some of your articles devoted to gravity and find there new points, particularly about possibility of absence of the gravitational waves, that is very likely for me. However, mine approach to gravity problem is differs from accepted ways. I have start from essence of elementary particles, and I have looked the gravity as universal, unknown property of all kinds of particles. It is long way, and used methodology very different from accepted ones. You can judge it from mine essay that I hop will interesting for you. Essay

I sent you a formula below, defining theoretically value of gravity constant:

G=alpha^2(1+alpha/2p)c*lambda^4/4ph*s^2=6.66*10^-11[Nm^2/kg^
2] (6.67*10^-11)

Where:

alpha=1/137

lambda - Compton wavelength of electron

p - 3.14...

h - Plank's constant

s - second

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 24, 2012 @ 09:25 GMT
Dear George,

Thanks for your kind comments. Actually, the absence of the gravitational waves, is NOT likely for me.

In any case, I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Sep. 23, 2012 @ 00:47 GMT
Hello Dr. Corda.

You say: "...at the present time, an absolute quantum gravity theory, which implies a total unification of various interactions..." This is correct, and it is an important point. I have discussed this in my essay and in various posts elsewhere in this essay contest. True or absolute quantum gravity requires fundamental unification in physics, and it requires gravity and inertia in fundamental equilibrium and balance (at half force strength) -- and this fundamentally balances and averages acceleration as well, thereby fundamentally proving/demonstrating F=ma as well. (As you well know, light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.) True/absolute quantum gravity requires fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. It requires that a larger space be made smaller, and that a smaller space be made larger. Absolute quantum gravity requires unified and balanced gravity and electromagnetism. These ideas warrant your serious and thorough scrutiny.

I will thoroughly review and rate your essay. It certainly appears valuable.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Christian,

I agree with you that general relativity (GR) is perfect theory which give us exact results. But the problem with GR is connected with the methodology of physics itself and with the fundamentals of the theory. To make the situation more clear let take the next example. Suppose we have a steady flow of an incompressible liquid with a constant flow rate through the tube which...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Sep. 27, 2012 @ 15:28 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Actually, I do not understand how your theory can be consistent with Equivalence Principle if it has its own energy-momentum tensor. This is the key issue as Equivalence Principle is an observational constrain. I think that you should agree with me that a theory which violates observational constrains has to be ruled out.

Best wishes,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer wrote on Oct. 1, 2012 @ 11:20 GMT
Dear Christian, et al,

My condolences also on the passing of Dr. Leiter.

I just read, as best I could, your essay today. I must say that I'm a simple person with no qualifications in physics. However, I did find some of the basic points in your analysis to be complimentary to some of my purely conceptual thinking.

In particular, it seems obvious that no form of matter could...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:43 GMT
Dear Jim,

Concerning SMBH with a total mass of >4 million Solar masses, we propose 3 different alternatives with respect to ordinary black holes. The first two are the so-called Eternally Collapsing Objects (ECOs) and Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECOs). MECOs are proposed like alternatives to black holes by Darryl Leiter, Stanley Robertson, and Rudy Schild. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs proposed by Abhas Mitra. In those objects the collapse must be slowed to a near halt by radiation pressure. A proposed observable difference between MECOs and black holes is that the MECO can produce its own magnetic field. An uncharged black hole cannot produce its own magnetic field, but its accretion disc can.

Together with Herman Mosquera Cuesta we proposed a third alternative to black holes, the Non-Linear Electrodynamics objects (NLED). We have shown that, by inserting a non linear electrodynamics term in the right hand side of the Einstein Field Equation, an exact non-singular solution of such an equation can be found for a collapsing body. Such a solution well matches with the external Schwarzschild solution.

Concerning the recent proposal that "the true BHs should have M = 0," you can find the paper by Mitra here: http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.4754.

I am also going to comment the ideas that you discussed in your comment, but, before making this, I prefer to read your Essay on the Galaxy Rotation Problem. I will put my comments in your Essay page.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

James T. Dwyer replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 05:31 GMT
Dear Chris,

Thanks again for your kind consideration! I replied to your comment in my essay's blog, including some additional thoughts about the Bullet Cluster. I'll summarize below in case you don't get back to my page...

I understand (in principle) that general relativity is fundamentally more accurate than classical physics and at least more correctly and more completely describes the physical effects of gravitation. However, in my view, the fundamental issue with galaxy gravitational evaluations is not (when correctly applied) Newtonian physics, it is the expedient misapplication of even simpler methods of approximation by astronomers and others. There are several references to research in my 'Supplemental Info." and "Cited Works" sections (the latter correcting one erroneous URL) that more correctly represent galactic mass configurations using Newtonian dynamics and gravitation to successfully represent observed galaxy rotation. There is also a reference using general relativity - Fred Cooperstock also takes the view that the failing is inherent in Newtonian physics.

Sincerely, Jim

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:21 GMT
Dear Jim,

Thanks again for this interesting discussion.

I am going to read your full comment on general relativity, Newtonian theory and misapplication of methods of approximation by astronomers in your Essay page.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 07:50 GMT
After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 13:48 GMT
Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your rating. But it looks to have been a low rating. In fact, I have seen that our Essay went down from the 8th to the 10th position just before your message above.

Is this correct? In that case it should have been better that you did not rate our Essay.

Sincerely,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Michael A. Popov wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 14:47 GMT
Christian,

I suspect that the equation 3x^3 + 8c1a^2B^4x - a^2B^2x = 0 is reducible to the cubic equation having a pair of conjugate complex roots. I do not know what it means taking physically.

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 15:35 GMT
Dear Michael,

Actually, the correct equation in our Essay is 3x^3 -(B^2)x + 8c1B^4=0.

The correspondent polynomial admits a minimum in x=B/(3)^1/2, a maximum in

x=-B/(3)^1/2 and it is positive for x=0. Hence, all the 3 solutions are real.

In any case, you put my attention on your Essay on the Wrong Mathematical Assumptions in Physics. I am going to read it nd I will bring back to you with my comments.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 2, 2012 @ 16:08 GMT
Dear Christian,

Darryl Jay Leiter would be truly content to see the essay you wrote together.

This is a fine way to continue the cooperation even when a part of the group is no longer in our causal universe.

I read the essay, but you lost me with the equations, however the most important thought is clear to me, the essence of BH's is not yet clear to us and you together also doubt the "existence" of singulairities.

In "THE CONSCIOUSNESS CONNECTION" my perception is that singulairities cannot exist in our causal universe, because it is limited by the Planck length and time.

What you are posing about the event horizon is indeed a foundational question, this event horizon is an exact limit and when you don't accept singulairities there are also no exact borders , because the Planck length is the minimum length, after that there is no longer cause and effect.

I hope you will read/rate and comment my essay.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 3, 2012 @ 09:53 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your kind words on Darryl Leiter. He was a great person and a great scientist and I agree with you that he would be truly content to see the essay we wrote together.

I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Sergey G Fedosin wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 05:19 GMT
If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is
$R_1$
and
$N_1$
was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have
$S_1=R_1 N_1$
of points. After it anyone give you
$dS$
of points so you have
$S_2=S_1+ dS$
of points and
$N_2=N_1+1$
is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have
$S_2=R_2 N_2$
of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be:
$S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1$
or
$(S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1$
or
$dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1$
In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points
$dS$
then the participant`s rating
$R_1$
was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

Sergey Fedosin

report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny Jedi replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:41 GMT
:) interesting algorythm. I ask me if several variables are inserted in a pure deterministic way ?

In fact, it depends of what we want to analyze after all.It is the reason why the domains become essential, it is the same for the limits of calculations.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Christian Corda replied on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Sergei,

Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 4, 2012 @ 18:16 GMT
Dear Dr. Corda, and colleagues,

My condolences for Dr. Leiter, whom I admire from previous fqxi essay contests. Your essay is very compelling, and one should not exclude the possibility that singularities and horizons don't actually exist. I think you are doing an important job by exploring this possibility. Being more intimidated by theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman, I took the complementary task to consider the singularities as inevitable, and see what happens. In my essay "Did God divide by zero?" I show that nothing that bad as expected, that black hole and big bang singularities not only are benign, but even introduce a metric dimensional reduction which may help at the quantization of gravity. So if the singularities will turn out to exist, I hope to provide a safety net with my approach. I would appreciate feedback to my essay, if you find time for this.

On the other hand, you may very well be right and nothing like singularities is admitted in reality. It may be possible that the strong equivalence principle be ensured by global consistency. I use global consistency in "Global and local aspects of causality" (independent of this contest's essay), to make quantum mechanics more reasonable and more compatible with general relativity.

Best wishes,

Cristi Stoica

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 08:21 GMT
Hi Cristi,

Thanks for condolances for Darryl. He was an excellent person and a great scientist.

I saw that you are, like us, one of the victims of the strange "rasing and dropping" of the Community Rating.

Concerning physics, I think that the theorems of Penrose, Hawking, Christodoulou, and Klainerman are a fantastic mathematical result, but not sacred cows. Physics of compact objects could be different.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Jin He wrote on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:00 GMT
I rate yours 10.

report post as inappropriate
Christian Corda replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 12:34 GMT
Thanks my dear Jin.

Cheers,

Ch.

report post as inappropriate

Jin He replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 16:14 GMT
Dear Christian Corda,

Thanks for your rating. But that does not work. The scientific academia is controlled by the powerful celebrity in the same way the Western financial system is controlled by those powerful celebrity.

Thanks anyway.

Jin He

report post as inappropriate

agorabiz wrote on Nov. 27, 2012 @ 12:23 GMT
Dark Energy is the great mystery in the universe today.Scientists only have some ideas about dark energy but today 73 percent is something even more mysterious, which they call dark energy.

bureaux à louer

report post as inappropriate
douglas william lipp replied on Nov. 28, 2012 @ 12:55 GMT
Try the CIG Theory approach to resolve the great mystery of Dark Energy.

www.CIGTheory.com

doug

report post as inappropriate