FQXi Community

Essay Abstract

It is an intuitive but general conviction that black holes (BHs) result in highly excited states representing both the hydrogen atom and the quasi-thermal emission in quantum gravity. Here we show that such an intuitive picture is more than a picture, discussing a model of quantum BH somewhat similar to the historical semi-classical model of the structure of a hydrogen atom introduced by Bohr in 1913. Our model has important implications for the BH information paradox and is in perfect agreement with existing results in the literature, starting from the famous result of Bekenstein on the area quantization.

Author Bio

Theoretical physicist, Ph.D in Physics at the Pisa University. I am Professor of Mathematical Physics and Director of the Dipartimento di Fisica e Chimica of the Istituto Universitario di Ricerca Scientica "Santa Rita" in Prato, Italy. In the last three years my research was focused on black hole physics. I won the FQXi Community Rating of the 2013 FQXi Essay Contest with the highest Community Rating in the history of FQXi Essay Contests. I am also Editor and/or Editor in Chief of various international journals in the fields of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics

Download Essay PDF File

Hi Christian,

In the endnotes you point out that gravity is the only theory whose interactions are not quantized. Let me point out also that gravity is the only theory with a boundless energy function, and therein lies the problem.

The Newtonian potential energy function is the source of the difficulty. In my 2012 fqxi essay there is a re-derivation of potential energy using special relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle. The essential difference in the derivation is that a relativistic approach requires multiplication instead of integration. The resulting function can be normalized by the rest energy of a test particle yielding Mach's principle. Plugging the potential energy function into Gullstrand-Painleve coordinates gives an exponential metric.

Vladimir Majernik's arxiv paper also arrives at an exponential metric but using a substantially different technique.

Abandoning Newton's boundless energy function and adopting Mach's principle necessarily means abandoning black holes.

Best Wishes

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Welcome to the contest

I also had to consider : seeks unity of Attraction and Quantum, and found that : irreconcilable for things that we can not identify a specific and detailed way - especially the by measures of mathematics.

Anyway, wish you success along with the highest score for the passion and enthusiasm of you

Hải.CaoHoàng

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 07:15 GMT

Dear Hoang cao Hai,

Thanks for your kind comments.

Yes,I agree with you that seeking unity of Attraction and Quantum is an extremely difficult challenge.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Colin,

Thanks for reading my Essay and for your kind comments.

Actually, in my endnotes I also point out the impossibility to localize the gravitational field, and, in turn, its energy, in general relativity. In fact, Einstein Equivalence Principle implies that one can always choice a reference frame, the one of the free falling observer, where the gravitational field is always null. In classical geometrical terms, space-time is globally curve, but locally flat. Thus, we know that the gravitational energy has a global contribute, but we cannot localize it.

I do not understand you sentence that "Abandoning Newton's boundless energy function and adopting Mach's principle necessarily means abandoning black holes." In fact, today we study black holes with general relativity and/or extended theories of gravity instead of Newton theory. I also do not see a contradiction between Mach's principle and the existence of black holes.

Cheers, Ch.

Colin Walker replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 18:54 GMT

Dear Christian,

The point is that the Einstein-Hilbert action is unbounded because it is based on classical Newtonian gravitational potential energy. I have no idea how to incorporate relativistic gravitational potential energy into general relativity (I was hoping you might) but it ought to be clear that an unbounded energy function is unphysical and could be the source of considerable difficulty.

As it stands, general relativity has been tested to first order. A decisive second order test, LATOR, is feasible with current technology, and that will tell whether blacks holes have any basis in reality. LATOR is the modern version of measuring the deflection of light passing the Sun using lasers.

You may have to look at the links provided previously to understand that black holes do not occur with a suitably bounded energy function. Here is a link to an updated version of my 2012 fqxi essay which should be more readable.

"Abandoning black holes", as I put it, is clearly not something a black hole expert is eager to do. On the other hand, the bounded potential energy function that comes from a relativistic treatment might appeal to someone wanting to quantize gravitation.

Given all the current essays and your work, I know it is hard, but please take the time to investigate this little-known possibility.

Best to you,

Colin

By the way I do not rate any essays until the end.

report post as inappropriate

Colin Walker replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 18:41 GMT

Dear Christian,

It occurs to me that the present theory of black holes still applies to elementary particles, which are essentially indivisible.

The exponential form I find for the relativistic gravitational potential energy function comes from the nonlinearity of special relativity when merging two objects to form a larger object. That is to say, my theory probably deals only with aggregate matter, not particles or anything at the Planck scale.

As the aggregate problem may not be worth trying to quantize, it seems less interesting even to me, although it still makes a nice prediction.

If any one has ideas or questions please let me know at my essay, Democracy of the dice people

Why quantize gravity? It could be the best way to get off this planet, which seems to be the theme of many essays.

With greatest respect,

Colin

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 07:00 GMT

Dear Colin,

The key point is that Equivalence Principle prevents to find the relativistic gravitational potential energy function with the sole exception of the perfect spherical symmetry.

I any case, I wish you best luck in the Contest. I will read your Essay in next days.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Ch,

I am reading your paper now. I will try to finish it in today. It appears to be dropping a bit since a few hours ago when it had a 10. I have to read it first before giving it a score.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 17:22 GMT

Thanks LC. After an initial score "10", 3 trolls gave me a score "1". I suspect this is due to envy and without reading the Essay at all. Thus my Essay dropped.

Cheers, Ch.

Stuart Marongwe replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 14:51 GMT

I think the expert judges are aware of trolling activity and will judge your essay according to its merit so don't be concerned with trolls throwing mud at you it won't stick!

Trolls could be folks who have had their pet theories rejected by journals and may have an axe to grind with anyone in the academia. They will consider it their lucky day if you happen to be an editor of a scientific journal!

regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 15:17 GMT

Dear Stuart,

I hoped that expert judges were impartial and judged your essay according to its merit till last year. In fact, I won the FQXi Community Rating of the 2013 FQXi Essay Contest with the highest Community Rating in the history of FQXi Essay Contests, but, for the first time, the FQXi Judges did not awarded the Community Rating Winner while they awarded two Essays which were completely wrong to say the least, and were pure rubbish in a full serious judgement.This is due to the issue that I have no political connections while the authors of the two cited Essays have strong political connections. My attorney at law is discussing this issue with FQXi.I hope in a better meritocracy system this year.

Cheers, Ch.

show all replies (1 not shown)

Hie Christian

Your essay touches one of the most interesting subject area of theoretical physics which is my area of interest. I have a paper( http://worldscientific.com/toc/ijgmmp/0/ja ) accepted for publication on this topic. My questions are

1) what is the energy/mass of the graviton in your paper?

2) What testable predictions does your theory make?

3) Do you consider Dark Energy and Dark Matter as manifestations of Quantum Gravity

I would like to rate your essay and answers to the above questions would help.

Best regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 08:09 GMT

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your comments with interesting questions.

1) Actually, I use Bohr's Correspondence Principle in this Essay, which enables an accurate semi-classical analysis for large values of the principal quantum number n, and independently from the other quantum numbers. Thus, I cannot distinguish particles at this semi-classical level. In order to consider the graviton we need to quantize the model in the full theory of general relativity, or, at least, we should understand the character of QNMs for small n, where dependence from the other quantum numbers is important.

2) I think the only possibility is to refine experiments concerning potential observation of Hawking radiation taking into account the black hole back reaction.

3) In my personal opinion, the problem with Dark Energy and Dark Matter is purely classical. The key point is that the total energy depends on coordinates in general relativity and in other metric theories of gravity. This is due to Einstein Equivalence Principle, which implies that one can always choice a reference frame, the one of the free falling observer, where the gravitational field is always null. This implies that, although the gravitational energy has a global contribute, we cannot localize it. A possible alternative to Dark Energy and Dark Matter is that general relativity could need modifies at large scales.

I have no access to International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics, but I have read the title of your paper which is very interesting and explains the reason of your above questions. Can you send me a pdf copy of it via email? Thanks, I am also going to read your Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

My Dear Professor Corda,

I found your essay so thrilling to read I may not be able to sleep for some time due to the excitement it aroused in me. I do have one minor quibble that I hope you do not mind me mentioning. It is physically impossible to unify abstract general relativity and abstract quantum mechanics because they are unreal.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my...

view entire post

My Dear Professor Corda,

I found your essay so thrilling to read I may not be able to sleep for some time due to the excitement it aroused in me. I do have one minor quibble that I hope you do not mind me mentioning. It is physically impossible to unify abstract general relativity and abstract quantum mechanics because they are unreal.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based only on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at the constant “speed” of light. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent “speed” that is less than the “speed” of light. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract.. As a surface can only travel at the constant “speed” of light, and that speed cannot be exceeded, a surface cannot peel away from a sub-surface. As a sub-surface is attached to a surface by a random fluctuating energy field, a sub-surface cannot reduce its inconsistent speed to the point where it becomes inertial. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

I use the term “speed” of light merely to make it easier for the reader to understand my theory. Actually light cannot move because it does not have a surface. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at a rate of speed that is less than the “speed” of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the “speed” of light because all surfaces can only travel at the “speed” of light. When it strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers “see” abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug’s bottom.

With appropriate regards,

Joe Fisher

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 08:28 GMT

Dear Joe,

Thanks for finding my Essay thrilling to read.

I have one minor quibble to your statements too. I disagree with the issue that Einstein was completely wrong. In any case, I am going to read your Essay in order to have more informations on your INERT LIGHT THEORY.

Thanks again.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian,

I greatly agree with your comment that "Realizing a complete theory of quantum gravity, which will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, is unanimously considered one of the most important tasks which steers the future of science in general and of theoretical physics in particular. In fact, such a fundamental result will steer humanity towards a better...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

I greatly agree with your comment that "Realizing a complete theory of quantum gravity, which will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, is unanimously considered one of the most important tasks which steers the future of science in general and of theoretical physics in particular. In fact, such a fundamental result will steer humanity towards a better understanding of the universe" as well as in the endnote when you said, "obtaining an ultimate theory of quantum gravity will represent a cornerstone for our understanding of the fundamental laws of nature."

The Black Hole Information Paradox has been solved. It is a rather simple solution. The solution is that matter falling into a Black Hole converts into Space, causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. It comes back to the Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Black holes are the transformation of matter to an inverse state of energy that is subspace (otherwise known as the Aether). Much Electromagnetics is based upon the Aether such as Maxwell's Equations that contain the Parameters of Space. See the c-constant is defined by the Parameters of Space. Did you know that the Magnetic Constant was arbitrarily set to 4PI x 10^-7 m*kg*s^-2*A^-2. The 4PI was half of 8PI and the 10^-7 comes from a decimal shift in the definition of the meter. A meter is One Ten-Millionth (10^7) the arclength of a quadrant of the earth's Meridean. Actually the Magnetic Constant is not constant and neither is the speed-of-light. While the c-constant is an Energy Constant (like a natural base-unit), the speed-of-light entirely depends upon the Parameters of Space. What we call Gravitational Lensing is actually Gravitational Refraction. Light passing through a gravitational field slows down and curves its pathway just like light passing through a glass of water (which has a high refractive index). The Parameters of Space are symmetrical inverses of Space and Time, which are based upon wavelength and frequency. The string in String Theory is the photon and an Electron is a ball of string that vibrates and rotates. The Photon is the fundamental component of all Matter and Space.

The reason that I know so much about this is because I derived the Unified Field Equation. First I linked Mass-Energy Equivalence to the Lorentz transformations of Mass-Increase and Time-Dilation to form the Tuck-Einstein Equation as Energy = (Space * Mass * Time) / (1 - (v^2/c^2))^0.5, where the variables of Space and Time are initialized by the c-constant. This Multivariate Calculus equation not only mathematically finishes the equation of Special Relativity, it correctly replaces the Dirac Equation of Quantum Mechanics. In fact, Maxwell's Wave Equation is a Partial Differential Equation of inverse form using fields. Finally, I integrated a variant of Ampère's Force Law with the right-hand side of Einstein's Field Equation of Gravitation (throwing out the Riemann Geometry). However, the inverse form of this equation was even more interesting because it is the Quantum Entropic Force Equation.

Physicists made a lot of mistakes in Science. For starters, they use Partial Differential Equations that are little more than approximations and wonder why they run into singularities and infinities. If they had all the variables then they would have much simpler Multivariate Calculus Equations. Instead they use mathematical tricks like Perturbation and Renormalization. They also don't treat Time correctly as a kinetic-energy but rather as a spatial coordinate that leads to Light-Cone mapping and Imaginary Numbers. Then don't get me started on the flawed Logical Positivism used in conventional Quantum Mechanics. The universe is Deterministic. I don't know why probability was favored when all probability is based upon a deterministic systems.

I applaud your use of the Bohr Model as I am successfully applying it relativistically to the atom. It is interesting to see things like Keplar's Law of Areas for Planitary Motion at the Quantum Level. Now that I am understanding the Electron Magnetic Dipole Moment and seeing large-scale Electromagnetic phenomena rooted in Quantum Mechanics, I am posed to model an atom (with accurate electron spin and orbital motion) and hopefully move on to the Chemical Reactions and Biological Interactions of molecules. You can view a summery of my scientific work in Theoretical Physics in the essay "How Should Humanity Steer the Future by Stephen Tuck."

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 08:38 GMT

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for your positive judgement on some statements of my Essay and for applauding my use of the Bohr Model. I agree with you that the universe is deterministic. I will analyse your Unified Field Equation as I am going to read your Essay soon.

Thanks again.

Cheers, Ch.

Anonymous replied on Apr. 24, 2014 @ 19:18 GMT

Dear Christian,

Thank you, I don't always get such a cordial response from academics. Quite frankly, I don't see a Theoretical Physicist with a career admitting the possibility that someone has discovered the Unified Field Equation. After all, most make it their life-long pursuit that is just outside the grasp of human understanding. Personally, I see new opportunities for Physicists to...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

Thank you, I don't always get such a cordial response from academics. Quite frankly, I don't see a Theoretical Physicist with a career admitting the possibility that someone has discovered the Unified Field Equation. After all, most make it their life-long pursuit that is just outside the grasp of human understanding. Personally, I see new opportunities for Physicists to branch into the Physics of Chemistry and Biology through such unification. I believe that it will mean working on things of even greater precision and complexity, which will drive innovation within the commercial industry. I will give you more information that would be beneficial towards your task of verifying my Unified Field Equation. I can supply you with whatever you need. The derivation and integrations are relatively straightforward. I think the real proof is in crunching numbers with the equation. The easiest way to do this is with an Equation Solver. It is a tool that I use extensively myself. You can enter the text version of the equation (as supplied in my paper) into a Texas Instruments calculator or if you use an iPhone like me, you can use Formulaic. You may already have your own (I don't know). The Energy, Mass, and c-constant are all pretty basic physics. You would want to use the earth's mass and energy for one of the objects and then use the mass and energy of another object like for instance a 1 kg calibration weight. I personally like using the Tuck-Einstein Equation, but it takes a special procedure to get the energy from Time-Dilation to shift into the Mass-Increase. It is likely because I am working two equations simultaneously within that integration (that map within the range of c^2) and have to work within the limitations of current equation solvers. The q-variable is equivocal to PI in the Equation of Everything because it is dealing with the Quantum Level. It is similar to how the Velocity-variable in the equation within my paper is the Frequency of the Electron (which matches the size of an Electron in comparison to the Electromagnetic Spectrum; see Wikipedia for an EM Spectrum Chart). The Radius is 1 (or unity in the initial non-adjusted equation) and then you might start with Velocity as zero. You will get PI^2 for the Force, which is based upon a Perfectly Spherical Earth. You should look at the Inverse Form of the Equation which is the Quantum Entropic Force Equation (which I supplied variable values). It seems to contain a quantum version of the Lorentz Force Equation on the left-hand side. You might be interested to know that I was able to integrate Ampère's Force Law and Einstein's Field Equation through the Parameters of Space (specifically 2X the Magnetic Constant; 2 micro-0). There is a lot of evidence that supports this equation as being correct. I have even been able to map fermions to a subset of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Temperature. You should see where I link the values of Farads and Microgaussians to the Fermion Temperature Range of the EM Spectrum. However, my explaination of charge being Rotational Kinetic-Energy equal to 2PI Radians (1 rotation) and what the 8PI in Einstein's Field Equation represents should go a long way in understanding. I think the fact that all the mathematics fits flawlessly together and that Inverse Equation Forms are themselves other Physical Laws of the Universe proves a lot in and of itself. If I had not derived the Tuck-Einstein Equation then I couldn't have integrated the equations because of the substitution required. Now I have even figured out how Elementary Charge comes from the Electron Spin Moment. This is hidden by the fact that the Coulomb was arbitrarily increased by 10^4 and the Tesla was shifted by 10^-4. This is due to their mathematical relationship in Lorentz Force Law that states, "a particle carrying a charge of 1 Coulomb that is passing through a magnetic field of 1 Tesla at a speed of 1 meter per second perpendicular to the field experiences a force with a magnitude of 1 Newton." I tried to include a lot of my mathematical work into that paper so it should be an interesting read for someone of your great knowledge and experience. Anyways, I really hope you will give my work a fair and honest review!

Best Regards,

Stephen Tuck

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Stephen Tuck replied on Apr. 25, 2014 @ 06:58 GMT

Dear Christian,

This is Stephen again. I have given your essay a very high rating. I release you from the obligation of publically reviewing my essay if you decide that it would be in your best interest not to comment. If I were wrong then there would be nothing to worry about since I would be just another crank claiming the impossible. However, assuming I am right then it places a...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

This is Stephen again. I have given your essay a very high rating. I release you from the obligation of publically reviewing my essay if you decide that it would be in your best interest not to comment. If I were wrong then there would be nothing to worry about since I would be just another crank claiming the impossible. However, assuming I am right then it places a career-minded Ph.D. such as yourself in a precarious predicament of having to chose between embracing or denying such an accomplishment. I can tell you that I have worked incredibly hard for several years now and it has brought me nothing by knowledge and a certain amount of pride. I don't see a way for someone like myself to receive any type of recognition, funding, or support for my work in Theoretical Physics. I feel like I am on the verge of making incredible breakthroughs in modeling the dynamics of atoms and molecules as well as Chemical and Biological Interactions. I was hoping that I could convince a biotech company of the technological advancements I could achieve in mathematically decoding the finctionality of Recumbent DNA Nucleotides. Ultimately that's where I would like to see my scientific work advance because of the great beauty and complexity that is within the processes of biological organisms.

On a cautionary note, your colleagues would probably not like me too much. I have entirely disproved the Higgs Mechanism. I figured that they would try something like that some months before the Higgs Boson announcement. Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking explains nothing. What really gives rise to mass is the same mechanism that causes a relativistic Mass-Increase, which is the Lorentz Mechanism. Mass is due to an increase in Wavelength or Photonic-String Length. In the Lorentz transformation, frequency-energy is converted into wavelength or mass. I have been able to explain the seasonal aberration in the Gravitational Constant by noting that our orbit is elliptical, which means that our velocity changes along the earth's orbit. This small change in velocity does affect the Mass of objects through this mechanism. If you would like to contact me confidentially in private, you may email me through gmail as my username is stephentuck25. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)

Ch

Have you tried to apply Wannier functions to your model? That is considering an orbiting particle like an electron moving in the presence of noise in solid state physics. If you try that I think you get airy coeffiencts Ai(r) inwhich the higher quantum numbers are close to the source of gravity.This is the basis of my quantum theory of gravity inwhich I see the Wannier functions as a spacetime wave packet.

Best regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 27, 2014 @ 15:00 GMT

Hi Stuart,

Your idea to apply Wannier functions to my model looks intriguing. Give me a bit of time to read your paper published in International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics and we could try to write a joined paper on this issue. You could also be interested to the time evolution of my model here. It is an improved version of my 2013 FQXi Essay, which won the FQXi Community Rating of the 2013 FQXi Essay Contest with the highest Community Rating in the history of FQXi Essay Contests. Strangely and for the first time in FQXi Essay Contests, it has not be awarded by the FQXi Judges.

Cheers, Ch.

The main point here is that the entropy of a black hole is S ~ A/4 + ln(A) + …, where the area A ~ M^2 is such that for large M this is essentially the Bekenstein bound S = A/4. The logarithmic part is much smaller that the A/4 for the mass large. For tiny black holes the logarithmic part becomes significant. This part of the formula and the rest is what is of interest.

There is an underlying physical meaning to this. The Bekenstein bound is based on the idea that quantum phases of Hawking radiation are random. Bekenstein formulated this as a black hole form of black body radiation by counting up harmonic oscillators. The phases of oscillators are ignored or considered to be random. This was carried further by Hawking with his estimate of the back reaction of the black hole with the emission of radiation. When the black hole becomes very small so that its mass is less than ~ 10^3M_p this approximation begins to fail. The phase of the oscillators on the horizon of the BH is entangled with the Hawking radiation and its physics is more prevalent

An approximate form of the partition function of states on the black hole horizon is

Z = sum_n e^{-E}p(n)

for p(n) ~ e^{sqrt{n}β} as n --- > ∞. The E = GM^2β is the energy distribution of states and p(n) is the degeneracy of states. This little part with the number n ~ A is responsible for that ln(A) term I think.

This work hints at a deep connection between the degeneracy of states on a black hole as an integer partition and the density of states on a string. The scattering of two closed strings, with graviton modes, gives an intermediate state of a black hole that decays into a spray of particles (strings) that are the Hawking radiation. This seems to indicate a connection between string theory and LQG, where LQG gives the constraint condition for physical states.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Dear LC,

Your statement that "The phase of the oscillators on the horizon of the BH is entangled with the Hawking radiation" is exactly the solution of the entanglement problem connected with the information paradox. As such oscillations are QNMs, this mean that Hawking quanta are entangled with such QNMs. In other words, all the information from the black hole is NOT destroyed, but it is encoded in eq. (36) of my last year Essay instead. In my opinion, the 2013 FQXi Judges failed to understand this key point and this is one of the reasons because they rejected my 2013 Essay.

Cheers, Ch.

Lawrence B Crowell replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 22:50 GMT

First off I found the following essay very interesting. I gave this a 9, and while that pulls the essay way ahead of the rest of ours this hits a lot of nails on the head. It has nothing to do with physics, but with sociopaths (he calls psychopaths) in power as psychocracy. Due to personal circumstances I have almost an advanced degree in the psychology of sociopaths.

The deviation from the Bekenstein bound is due to I think an error correction code system. The interior of black holes is entangled with the exterior, and this leads to troubles with quantum information. The old standby idea of the EPR particle pair near the horizon implying that Hawking radiation entanglement with the BH means the BH runs out of quantum information at about half its mass, or with certain modifications at the Page time. The additional quantum entanglement with the interior permits a quantum error correction code (ECC) to run, but this runs into troubles as the number of occupation states with the Hilbert space for the ECC increases beyond the Bekenstein bound.

The interior spacetime of the BH has curious properties, such as winding of geodesics that are on Cauchy horizons. From an information mechanics perspective it means this is a hyper-Turning machine. This quantum machine can compute second order λ-calculus, which is beyond the power of Turing machines or quantum computers. There is an entanglement between these states and the exterior. The exterior states are ordinary quantum machines, but their limited power is entangled with a second order λ-calculus system. This makes the system an “open system” which is able to overcome the problem of the ECC limitation.

I’ll send some references to ideas along these lines.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 11:13 GMT

Thanks LC, I am going to read the suggested Essay. I also look forward to see the cited references.

Cheers, Ch.

Christian,

You're aware I certainly agree that all the information entering a black hole re-emerges. In my view as the significant 'AGN' outflows, mostly re-ionized, but I see no inconsistency with the description you utilise. Do you?

I suspect there may have been more reason for the passing over of your essay last year than just failed understanding of BH information retention. You've done an excellent job again, and at least clarified that point. I do hope it gets more recognition.

I prefer a mode pedagogical approach but see you may have perceived the need to include comprehensive mathematics to satisfy questioning by the judges. I do hope that works and doesn't compromise popular peer scoring support. Certainly I think it worth the same good score as last years and hope it does well. I see it's been badly 'trolled', as has mine, but a troll can only hit once.

I look forward to your valuable advice on my own, deriving the predictions of QM from a classical mechanism, circumventing Bells theorem, but in a less 'scientific paper' style to hopefully allow Joe average an insight into a logical version of QM and convergence with SR.

Best of luck in the contest.

Peter

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 17:53 GMT

Hi Peter,

Nice to re-meet you here.Thanks for your kind words on my Essay. Yes, I agree with you that there may have been more reasons for the passing over of my essay last year than just failed understanding of BH information retention. I suspect that there were "political reasons".

OK, I am going to read, comment and score your Essay in next days. Best of luck in the contest also to you.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear professor Corda,

The solution of the almost insurmountable problem of unifying SR and quantum physics is surely one of the corner stones for humanity to build a new comprehension of our reality.

Your progressive thinking is surely helping us further forward, together with Stephen Hawking and the new perception of Carlo Rovelli (Planck Stars as the core of Black holes) I think we make an approach to a fresh way of thinking.

I thank you for your submission and hope that there will be this time more understanding for your insurgent thinking.

I also thank you for your comprehensive comment on my essay.

good luck this time with the FQXi judges.

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 20:00 GMT

Dear Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your kind words on my Essay. Yes, I think that the approach of quasi-normal modes by myself and collaborators and the approach of Planck Stars by Rovelli and collaborators are both important and open new perspectives in quantum gravity. Maybe that approaches could have some common point.

Thanks again and best luck for the Contest.

Cheers, Ch.

Hi Christian,

Nice to see you in the essay contest forum again. I have not had time to read over your entire essay yet but I did have two comments/questions from the early part which I read which I wanted to already ask.

The first is a quibble in that "Will it really help humanity if we understand BH radiation, get a theory of quantum gravity, etc.?" In other words how important is the really? Note I am playing devil's advocate (the same thing I mentioned on Phil Gibbs) discussion, since as a theoretical physicist I spend a large percentage of my time thinking about these things. And then if people ask me what I do *and* if they stick around for the full answer the response from them is usually "Can you build a better iPhone, flat screen TV, etc. with this knowledge?" To which the answer is "Yes, maybe eventually, but isn't this of intrinsic interest without the need from some kind of gadget as the outcome?"

OK now to the second more substantive question -- in equation (3) you are proposing a modification of the usual Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions and therefore (I think) this would mean some modification of the underlying FD and BE statistics. Might not this lead to some observable consequences. For example, white dwarfs and neutron stars are held up by Fermi degeneracy pressure. If one modifies the statistics this might lead to a potentially observable chance in the mass-radius relationship of such objects. Or maybe one might be able to see a deviation from BE statistics in systems which exhibit such behavior (although usually in such system as superconductors or superfluid helium gravity is a completely ignorable interaction so that the astrophysical objects might be a better bet in regard to looking for deviations.

Anyway good luck and I will more fully read and comment in less than a week (I hope since now we are entering the end of semester gauntlet).

Best,

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 07:58 GMT

Hi Doug,

Nice to re-meet you here in FQXi Contest.

Thanks for two intriguing comments/questions, here are my replies:

1) I well understand that you are playing devil's advocate as BH radiation, quantum gravity, etc. are also among your research fields. In any case, I think that an important way we can really help humanity is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of...

view entire post

Hi Doug,

Nice to re-meet you here in FQXi Contest.

Thanks for two intriguing comments/questions, here are my replies:

1) I well understand that you are playing devil's advocate as BH radiation, quantum gravity, etc. are also among your research fields. In any case, I think that an important way we can really help humanity is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. In my opinion, two fundamental points are that we well understand what are space and time and how must we handle quantum objects. Quantum gravity is the synthesis of these two issues. More, various researcher think that understanding quantum gravity should be also important for realizing quantum computers, which should be the future of collecting and handling information. On the other hand, I think that, without basic research in physics, we cannot have further progress in medicine, technology, nuclear power, nano-structures etc.

2)Your observations about the deviations of the usual Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions that I have found in BH radiance are extremely intriguing. In my opinion the key point is: do perfect black bodies exist in nature? Even cosmic background radiation shows little deviations from perfect thermality. Hawking discovery of BH radiance appeared to show that BH are perfect black bodies. On the other hand, Parikh and Wilczek showed that energy conservation generates a deviation from the strict thermality instead. More in general, do perfect thermal system exist in nature? For example, considering your example: are white dwarfs and neutron stars really held up by an EXACT Fermi degeneracy pressure? Of course, that model is an excellent approximation but, as you correctly stressed, deviations could open interesting perspectives for the search of new physics from both of the theoretical and observable points of you. As you are an expert on Hawking radiation as tunnelling, you can be interested to my rigorous derivation of equation (3) in Ann. Phys. 337, 49 (2013).

Thanks again for your comments and best luck for the Contest. I am going to read, comment and score your Essay in next days.

Cheers,

Ch.

view post as summary

Stuart Marongwe replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 14:10 GMT

Also the experimental test for these fundamental theories generates not only jobs but a host of heretheto unknown technologies that benefit everyone. The touch screen, internet etc came from cern and other research centers. So yes there are benefits to be derived from investing in fundamental research.

Regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 16:31 GMT

Thanks Stuart, I completely agree with you. On the other hand, as I wrote in Jonathan J. Dickau's page, although the notion that knowledge has value for its own sake is unpopular these days, it is my life philosophy.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Congratulations for the results! I read your essay with much interest, and I think that quantum black holes should indeed be similar to Bohr's model, at least semi-classically. As your work shows, this would explain some results which otherwise seem to be disconnected, concerning BH thermodynamics, the entropy, its (approximate) proportionality with the area etc. One of my future plans is, at some point, to invest more time in the problem of quantum behavior of black holes, and to study more thoroughly yours and other results. I am happy to see your progress, and how this research spreads in the community.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 2, 2014 @ 18:57 GMT

Hi Cristi,

You know that I have a great consideration of you and you research. Thus, I am very honoured by your kind words on my work.Let me know when you will start to work on quantum black holes. Maybe we could collaborate or, in any case, have some exchange of ideas.

Thanks again and best luck in the Contest, I am going to read, comment and score your Essay in next week.

Cheers, Ch.

Cristinel Stoica replied on May. 5, 2014 @ 06:31 GMT

Dear Christian,

Your essay is excellent, so my words are well deserved. My admiration to your work is great, and I would be deeply honored if we will collaborate, or at least exchange ideas. I wish you all the best and good luck with the contest.

Best regards,

Cristi

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 6, 2014 @ 06:49 GMT

Thank you very much Cristi. Let us keep in touch then.

Cheers, Ch.

Ch

If nothing is allowed to fall into a BH then we do not have the information paradox and firewall problems.Recall that it is the surface area of a BH that is important and not its volume.So from my investigations a BH is BEC of planck sized BHs wich constitute the surface of a BH.

regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 16:28 GMT

Dear Stuart,

Why do you claim that nothing is allowed to fall into a BH? In my knowledge it exactly the opposite, at least at the classical level, i.e. nothing is allowed to escape from a BH. I suppose that for BEC you mean Bose-Einstein Condensation. But in that case, I do not understand how planck sized 3-dimensional BHs can constitute the surface of a 2-dimensional macroscopic BH. Please, can you kindly clarify these points?

Cheers,

Ch.

Stuart Marongwe replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 12:22 GMT

Hie Ch

I have spent sometime trying to give you a simple and elegant reason why nothing falls into a BH. My work shows that a blackhole has negative temperature (a BH is matter in the highest energy state the planck state -all its microscopic constituents are in this single state) thus giving it low entropy as well as giving rise to a high thermal gradient. Thus anything outside the event horizon is'colder'and cannot go against this high thermal gradient.A particle of matter only falls up to the event horizon and no more farther than that. These conditions I believe are similar to the pre Big Bang conditions. At a critical point my research shows that a BH will go not hypernova but BIG BANG when the thermal gradient exceeds gravity.

Cheers

Stuart

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Hi Christian,

I have taken a look at your essay : ) Unfortunately I lack the education to understand most of what you have written. Please can you explain how your answer is related to the essay question. "How should humanity steer the future?"

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 16:41 GMT

Hi Georgina,

Thanks for taking a look to my Essay. Concerning your question, I think that an important way humanity can steer the future is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. Two fundamental points are that we well understand what are space and time and how must we handle quantum objects. Quantum gravity is the synthesis of these two issues. Also, various researchers think that understanding quantum gravity is also important for realizing quantum computers, which should be the future of collecting and handling information. Realizing a definitive model of quantum BH is fundamental for this task, as it is a general opinion that BHs are the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity in the same way that atoms are the fundamental bricks of quantum mechanics. It is also my conviction that, without basic research in physics, we cannot have further progress in medicine, technology, nuclear power, nano-structures etc.

I will read your Essay in next days.

Cheers, Ch.

Georgina Woodward replied on May. 11, 2014 @ 02:56 GMT

Thank you Christian, now I understand.

report post as inappropriate

Ch

I will be coming to a town close to you. I am participating at a workshop http://www.sissa.it/app/esqg2014/participants.php on Quantum gravity. Hope to see you there.

regards

Stuart

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 9, 2014 @ 17:05 GMT

Thanks Stuart. It looks an interesting workshop. I will try to come.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christain,

You might be interested in an accomplishment that I achieved in my Theoretical Physics research. It relates to the Bohr Model in a sense (since it is based upon Kepler's Laws). Yesterday I finally derived the complete equation for the Boltzmann Constant (which I'm sure you know is the physical constant relating energy at the individual particle level with temperature). I was...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 07:23 GMT

Dear Stephen,

I strongly suggest you to do not self-rename your results. They will be colleagues who will eventually cite your works to rename your equations. In fact, if you rename your equation "the Tuck-Einstein Equation" colleagues will consider you an arrogant crackpot. I have called my BH model as "Bohr-like model" not "the Corda-Bohr model". I strongly suggest you to be humble and do the same.

Cheers, Ch.

Stephen Tuck replied on May. 10, 2014 @ 22:19 GMT

Dear Christian,

I appreciate you for offering your advice. There are many things that I have discovered that I have had to give a name in order to label it something different or unknown. Quite often I have used names that are most intuitive such as the Lorentz Mechanism for the Lorentz transformations giving rise to mass (replacing the incorrect hypothetical Higgs Mechanism). I believe...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

I appreciate you for offering your advice. There are many things that I have discovered that I have had to give a name in order to label it something different or unknown. Quite often I have used names that are most intuitive such as the Lorentz Mechanism for the Lorentz transformations giving rise to mass (replacing the incorrect hypothetical Higgs Mechanism). I believe that a discoverer of knowledge has a right to name their new equations. Often the Surname is applied or appended to the name of equations since they are often historically named after their discoverers. There are numerous examples of this such as Newton's Law, Maxwell's Equations, and even the Bohr Model itself is named after its creator Niels Bohr. I know from your standpoint you are saying that I am making a social or political faux pas and you are absolutely right. This reaction of your colleagues stems from human emotion such as jealousy, envy, greed, or perhaps even contempt or disdain for my success in Theoretical Physics. I'm not trying to win over anyone. I don't care about what people think in terms of fragile human emotion. I don't care about stepping on people's toes or being politically correct because those people are holding back the technological advancement of mankind by caring more about themselves than about the truth. I am in an intellectual battle with academics who are the closest thing to being my peers. For someone who possesses a natural God-given ability, I do seem to outperform those with much higher formal education. I know that the men who write the history books and physics textbooks (in whatever light they see fit) will have the final say as to what they call my equations, but they should respect the wishes of the great discoverers. I try to temper my fiery, redheaded arrogance but if I temper it too much then I bow to the whims of others and my strength and confidence suffer as my scientific works are dimenished in value. I march to the beat of my own drum. However, this trait is inherent in my genetics because psychologically I would be diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome (which comes from Neanderthal Neurobiology). That is why I don't place much value on human emotion but rather logic and reasoning. As a parent, I do place a much higher value on my son's emotions but obviously your colleagues are not my children (so I do not treat them as such). If your colleagues unjustly characterize me as a crackpot then it sounds like a personal problem on their part. I see that as unfair and biased because if I am mislabeled then how many others have been wrongly treated likewise that have come before me? I would rather stand up and change people's perceptions than let the world continue thinking in unrighteous ways. I am an intellectual leader, not a follower. You know, I am stuck in a socioeconomic class where I can't find a solution to go to college in order to get a degree in physics to gain credibility. However, I think that it is deplorable that I should even have to after what I have accomplished. I thought when I accomplished the Unified Field Equation that I would be recognized and receive something compensible to all the hard work and sacrifice that I put into solving the problem. However, I just see barriers placed against me. There is no natural limit to what I could achieve (save for resources, disability, or death) for the technological advancement of mankind if only my work was embraced and supported. I could model the Quantum Mechanics of the Equation of Everything within the next decade if I were given the chance. That isn't just a piece of mathematics on paper, it is a computer model that solves every single scientific problem in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology simultaneously. That is the ultimate goal that I am truly after because it is something absolutely within my intellectual reach. I am sure that you see what I see as the great potential of my mathematical work. First I model the Quantum Mechanics of a Hydrogen Atom, then all the atoms of the Periodic Table of Elements, next Molecules, and finally all chemical and biological Molecular Interactions. I am pursuing the Holy Grail of Science well beyond the Unified Field Equation. Who could legitimately stand-up against the Equation of Everything that successfully models every single interaction of matter? Who could oppose the correct Theory of Everything that is computer-modeled down to the Planck-Scale? The countries of the world have spent billions of dollars on particle accelerators (and yet somehow physicists still find a way to screw-up when it comes to understanding the true nature of the universe) when I could finish my amazing work much faster for a fraction of the cost!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

Your work is highly commendable in Physics and applied Mathematics which may be difficult for a layman to understand. You have demonstrated the spirit of this forum. Your extensive research is proved by the volume of journal you consulted. I also discovered your scientific background. No doubt, all lovers of quantitative Physics will appreciate your work. It held my interest through out.

I also employ you to read my article on STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND ECOSYSTEM using this direct link http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2020

I also used thermodynamics principle, that is 1st law not entropy as you used to propound my model. Please read, comment and rate. I have rated yours!

All the best for the three authors in this competition.

Gbenga

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 12, 2014 @ 07:12 GMT

Dear Gbenga,

Thanks for your kind words on my Essay and for rating it. I will surely read, comment and rate your Essay in next days.

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Christian Corda

I found your essay very interesting and well written. I indeed agree that black holes is a very active area of research and it may be a key field for a TOE. Your mainly focuses on the physics of BH, so I do not see a clear connection with the main topic of this contest. Could you make some comments about it.

I would like to take the opportunity to invite to read and comment on my thread. I hope you like it.

Good luck in the contest!

Best Regards

Israel Perez

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 15, 2014 @ 06:10 GMT

Dear Israel,

Thanks for your nice comments on my Essay. Concerning the point that you do not see a clear connection with the main topic of this contest, I think that an important way humanity can steer the future is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. Two fundamental points are that we well understand what are space and time and how must we handle quantum objects. Quantum gravity is the synthesis of these two issues. Also, various researchers think that understanding quantum gravity is also important for realizing quantum computers, which should be the future of collecting and handling information. Realizing a definitive model of quantum BH is fundamental for this task, as it is a general opinion that BHs are the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity in the same way that atoms are the fundamental bricks of quantum mechanics. It is also my conviction that, without basic research in physics, we cannot have further progress in medicine, technology, nuclear power, nano-structures etc.

I am going to surely read your Essay in next days.

Cheers, Ch.

Israel Perez replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 23:13 GMT

Dear Christian

Thanks for your reply, it definitely answers my inquiries. I understand that science and technology greatly influences humanity and indeed the TOE will constitute a revolution in physics. Although, I was not well aware of the importance of black holes for revealing the nature of space and time. I think that the geometrical representation of space as understood in GR may not be the most suitable for the future of physics. I think that the understanding of the vacuum is the key to achieve a TOE. But, I think this is another discussion for another occasion.

By the way, thanks for leaving your comments/questions in my thread. I just replied to them.

Good luck in the contest!

Regards

Israel

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian,

I must confess, that I write this comment in the hope you might read, rate (I need some more ratings!) and comment on my essay as I don't really feel qualified to comment on BH issues. Yet I try:

As I understood you try to describe the BH as a single quantum object with some quantum numbers n,j,s etc. and not as a composite system as one would expect a BH to be. This conforms with the view I try to adapt more and more, that quantum mechanics describes properties of objects we can know. In fact it seems impossible to enter a BH and make local tomography to reconstruct the BH from its individual components.

Would that also mean, that an electron that enters the BH would be completely destroyed? Meaning that the gravitational interaction can destroy electrons?

However you might find some interesing findings in my essay. In the 3rd section I report on my attempt to reconstruct our known physics from a qbit. Of course I have not come very far. At least I could reconstruct the special relativistic space time from the simple assumption, that there must exist a von Neumann measurement scheme (first kind measurement) measuring the qbit that is SU(2) invariant.

Regards,

Luca

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 16, 2014 @ 17:36 GMT

Dear Luca,

Thanks for your kind comments.Concerning your questions, from the classical point of view, every particle which falls within a black hole, comprised the electron, precipitates in the singularity which is in the core of the hole, and, in turn, it should be destroyed. On the other hand, based on the presence of quantum effects the classical theory breaks down near the singularity. Thus, we need a full theory of quantum gravity, which has not yet found, in order to understand what really happens.

I will surely read,comment and rate your Essay in next days.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Christian,

I had a chance to look more at your essay and it is a strong work. Of course this topic (Hawking radiation) is one of the things I have worked on a bit so I find works in this direction of interest.

For me the potentially most interesting result of your essay (which you mentioned went back to your Annals of Physics article -- reference [16]) is the modification of the usual Fermi and Bose distributions in eqn. (3). If these distributions are altered then this might hint that there would be some modification of Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einstein statistics. This might bear more thinking about but it seems that altering the distributions should imply some altering of the underlying statistics used to derive them. In any case this might lead to some potential test of these idea. In other words maybe this would have some consequence for the structure of BHs or maybe for their mass distribution, For example, I recently learned of a puzzling "mass gap" in the distribution of BH mass. There appears to be some gap in the mass of the heaviest neutron stars (about 2*M_Sun) and the lightest BHs (which first come in at ~5*M_Sun). There appear to be no BHs in this gap between 2*M_Sun and 5*M_Sun. A general overview of this effect can be found at

http://astrobites.org/2011/10/17/mind-the-black-hole-mass-
gap/

which I think references some of the more technical papers. Anyway maybe altering the statistics would have some effect on the formation of BHs and might be used to explain things like this "mass gap".

Anyway I liked you article very much and I think the modified distributions in eqn. 3 might lead to some potential test.

Best of luck,

Doug

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 21:53 GMT

Dear Doug,

I am extremely honoured by your kind words and by your judging my Essay "a strong work". In fact I well know and strongly esteem your eminence in black hole physics. Yes, I agree with your point that the modification of the usual Fermi and Bose distributions should imply some modification of Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einstein statistics with potential interesting consequences for the structure of BHs or maybe for their mass distribution. Thanks for signalling the puzzling "mass gap" in the distribution of BH mass. I did not know this issue and I will surely go to the website that you suggest in order to find also technical references. No BHs in the gap between 2*M_Sun and 5*M_Sun is indeed a very strange and intriguing issue. I will also think about potential tests arising from the the modification of the usual Fermi and Bose distributions in my eqn. (3).

I am also going to read, comment and rate your Essay in next days.

Thanks again and best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Thomas Howard Ray replied on May. 21, 2014 @ 18:46 GMT

Hi Christian,

I figure this is a good place to enter the dialogue, because eqn 3 also caught and held my attention -- to the extent that I don't want to focus on anything else for the time being. Your essay is rich, and more along the lines of a research article; you know, though, that I am a fan of your research program, and I hope we can have a continued correspondence.

My own thoughts about the sign change in eqn 3, coupled with Bohr's correspondence principle, leads me to believe that transition frequencies at large quantum numbers should be the inverse of classical oscillation frequencies. I have a technical argument to support this, that I won't get into here -- however, the impact is that it elevates Bohr's principle from semi classical to a fully classical analysis.

The best I can do for the time being is to try and move your essay up higher in the list where it belongs.

All best,

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 05:35 GMT

Hi Tom,

Sadly, my previous reply to your post was among the ones that end up in limbo during the FQXi switch of servers. Thus, I rewrite it here.

Thank you very much for your kind words. I am honoured by them. Concerning the issue of having a continued correspondence, be free to contact me via email at cordac.galilei@gmail.com when you want.

I do not understand your point that the sign change in eqn 3, coupled with Bohr's correspondence principle, leads you to believe that transition frequencies at large quantum numbers should be the inverse of classical oscillation frequencies. Please, can you kindly send me via email your technical argument to support this?

Thanks again, I am going to read, comment and rate your Essay in next days. I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dr. Christian Corda,

You describe what you are showing and its relevance to steering humanity:

"Realizing a complete theory of quantum gravity, which will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, is unanimously considered one of the most

important tasks which steers the future of science in general and of theoretical physics in particular. In fact, such a fundamental...

view entire post

Dr. Christian Corda,

You describe what you are showing and its relevance to steering humanity:

"Realizing a complete theory of quantum gravity, which will unify general relativity and quantum mechanics, is unanimously considered one of the most

important tasks which steers the future of science in general and of theoretical physics in particular. In fact, such a fundamental result will steer humanity towards a better understanding of the universe. A key point of this issue is to realize a definitive model of quantum BH as BHs are generally considered theoretical laboratories for ideas in quantum gravity. It is indeed an intuitive but general conviction that, in some respects, BHs are the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity in the same way that atoms are the fundamental bricks of quantum mechanics. This analogy suggests that the BH mass should have a discrete spectrum. In this Essay, we show that the such an intuitive picture is more than a picture. Considering the natural correspondence between Hawking radiation [1] and BH quasi-normal modes (QNMs) [24], we show that QNMs can be really interpreted in terms of BH quantum levels discussing a BH model somewhat similar to the semi-classical Bohr model of the structure of a hydrogen atom [5, 6]."

In the end you explain how you have accomplished your task:

"Our Bohr-like model for BHs has important implications for the BH information paradox [37]. In fact, this Essay completes our previous results [24], confirming that BH QNMs are really the BH quantum levels in our Bohr-like semi-classical approximation. This point implies that BHs are well defined quantum mechanical systems, having ordered, discrete quantum spectra, in perfect agreement with the unitarity of the underlying quantum gravity theory and with the idea that information should come out in BH evaporation. Consistence between our Bohr-like model and a recent approach to solve the BH information paradox [2528] has been recently highlighted in [27]. Thus, the general conviction that BHs result in highly excited states representing both the hydrogen atom and the quasi-thermal emission in an unitary theory of quantum gravity is in perfect agreement with our Bohr-like model."

The essay was technical, but, you patiently explained what you were doing and why you where doing it. It was a pleasure to be led along on your journey.

James Putnam

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 18, 2014 @ 22:04 GMT

Dear James,

Thanks for your kind words. I am happy that you had fun in reading my Essay and that you understood its connection with the topic of the Contest.

I will surely read, comment and rate your Essay in next days.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Christian,

Thanks for reading my essay. I find yours quite intriguing in your recognition that one of the biggest mysteries in scientific concepts is gravity and is tied up in BH research. My belief in "looking beyond" and utilizing the full capacities of thinking can reveal such a mystery, key to advancing beyond a type 0 civilization and throwing off the yoke of fossil fuel dependency. I believe your concepts can help unlock the secrets of fusion, utilizing the boundless resource of hydrogen.

Jim

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 23, 2014 @ 09:04 GMT

Hi Jim,

Also in this case, I must re-write my reply to your kind post as it was among the ones that end up in limbo during the FQXi switch of servers.

Thank you very much for your comments. Reading your Essay was my pleasure. Yes, I agree with you that my concepts could, in principle, help unlock the secrets of fusion. The similitude between black hole and hydrogen atom cannot be a coincidence.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Christian,

It is a pleasure to see you in another contest. I personally feel you are on to something with your investigation of Black holes and your investigating them with concepts that are closer to the basics of quantum theory.

The way you used the end notes to give the results of your study in layman's terms is much appreciated. Thus your essay gave access to the experts and to amateurs like myself.

I enjoy tinkering with black holes, so please allow me to share my latest epic breakthrough :)

OK ready here it is: Neutrinos are the fundamental building block of black holes. Yes, I have never denied being on the lunatic fringe! FYI check out:

1. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/33_A_Tale_of_Two_Wavele
ngths.html

2. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/39_The_Schwarzschild_Ra
dius.html

3. http://www.digitalwavetheory.com/DWT/41_Neutrinos_and_Light.
html

I believe your essay should be a leader in this contest.

Wishing you the best,

Don Limuti

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 22, 2014 @ 13:56 GMT

Hi Don,

Thanks for your kind words. In particular, I appreciate your point that you liked the way I used the end notes for giving my results in layman's terms. Giving access also to amateurs is indeed of fundamental importance for me.

I am curious to see how neutrinos should be the fundamental building block of black holes. I will sure go to give a look to your website on digital wave theory.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Your proposal is deep and hard for a non-specialist to fully appreciate. I can see that you are applying creativity to this problem, which has tantalized and stayed out of reach for decades. Hawking's great discovery of horizon radiation transformed the fields and prospects for GR and QM, but still did not show a clear way to reconcile these approaches. Yes, I think it would...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

Your proposal is deep and hard for a non-specialist to fully appreciate. I can see that you are applying creativity to this problem, which has tantalized and stayed out of reach for decades. Hawking's great discovery of horizon radiation transformed the fields and prospects for GR and QM, but still did not show a clear way to reconcile these approaches. Yes, I think it would be fruitful to imaging atoms as exploratory models. Some theorists have already asked for example, what would happen if electrons were put into gravitational orbits around tiny black holes? The electrons would fill discrete energy levels determined, like for atoms, by the fitting of deBroglie wavelengths into the orbital circumferences.

I gather you are doing something more sophisticated than just such "gravity atoms." However there is so much detail and analysis it's hard to follow. To me the biggest complication is the interaction of spontaneous Hawking radiation with whatever electron/s or other particles might be orbiting the BH. As for quantization of BH mass and area etc, it seems to me that the BH mass can be on a continuum because imagine e.g. an arbitrarily low-energy photon falling in (well of course it is blue shifted relative to an observer stationary relative to the EH.) - or do I not best follow your point. But in any case, you have found striking correspondences that certainly deserve further study - rarely are such connections merely coincidental.

I think that your paper hasn't been fully appreciated because of the journal-level of the argument, and most other authors here have varying degrees of difficulty with that. Also, most people expect more direct proposals of "things to do" instead of basic conceptual insights that would at least change the global direction of scientific study. In the distant future, this could allow technologies that are incredible from our current perspective. Cheers. Also, again: many thanks for your approving and insightful comments at my own essay, which is gaining more attention lately.

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Sorry, got logged out (that goes with this territory as many of us have found. That was me above. I don't always remember to check, caught it this time.

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:08 GMT

Hi Neil,

Thanks for your kind comments. Actually, in my model they are exactly the quasi-normal modes which act as "electrons", i.e, as quantum energetic levels, and can be interpreted as particles quantized on the orbital circumferences. In turn, the Hawking quanta jump from an energy level to another. I do not know if my paper hasn't been fully appreciated because of the journal-level of the argument. In fact, I founded this Essay on a more technical research paper published in C. Corda, "Black hole quantum spectrum", Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2665 (2013). Here I tried to simplify the discussion and other authors told me that I used the end notes for giving my results in layman's terms and this permitted to give access also to amateurs. My computations in the Essay should be at the level of a course of quantum mechanics in a University.

Cheers,

Ch.

Neil Bates replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 01:03 GMT

Christian,

Yes, the Appendix is helpful for background. The formalism is still difficult for most non-experts but you've done what you could with the material. The broadness of backgrounds of the authors and even the Members makes it hard to target the level and language of an essay - I know from my own experience writing about quantum measurement in these contests. Also, novelties are harder to get across because they aren't a set of "reminder chunks" from typical textbook readings, etc.

Speaking of broadness, we have an incredible diversity of various proposals. Yet I note a frequent underlying refrain: we need to change thinking about our own nature, the universe, or both. Just posting lists of "here, do this" is widely recognized by our community to be inadequate. I'm glad to see this sentiment, that thinkers appreciate we can't just plug new tasks into the same persons and/or paradigms as before.

report post as inappropriate

Dear Christian Corda

I also claim that the black hole (BH) is the essence of quantum gravity. But, I have a different approach to BHs. I have a model, where BH can be smaller than Planck's mass. Thus elementary particles can be also BHs. But, I admit that this is in a little contradiction with Higgs mechanism. Therefore I will wait for more advanced models of Higgs mechanism. One known unknown is also how to merge Higgs mechanism and gravity. I claim independently in section 4, of the above model that matter does not exist without time. GR claims, [Page 138], that space-time does not exist without matter. Thus I ask, also you, how rest matter can arise from empty space-time. I think that Higgs mechanism need a little correction that it will not be contradictory with gravity theory. In that case also my small BHs theory have some hope.

Anyway, can you explain in short your eq. (2), before I read your references [10] in [11]. Is Black hole neither boson nor fermion. Etc.

Best regards Janko Kokosar

My essay

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 28, 2014 @ 17:24 GMT

Dear Janko,

Thanks for your kind comments.

I am curious about your model where BH can be smaller than Planck's mass. I will surely read it in next days. I also agree with you that Higgs mechanism could need corrections. On the other hand, in extended theories of gravity, rest matter can arise from variations of empty space-time, at least in the linearized theory, see for example my paper New Advances in Physics, Vol. 7, No. 1, January-June 2013, Pp. 67-83.

Eq. (2) means that the BH does not exactly emit like a perfect black body. This implies a modification of the usual Fermi and Bose distributions (see eq. (3) in the Essay and my paper reference [16]), which, in turn, should imply some modification of Fermi-Dirac statistics and Bose-Einstein statistics.

Thanks again, I will read, comment and rate your Essay soon.

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Much happy to discuss with you on this, Dear Corda,

On reading your article, I have perceived that your concept on quantum gravity is new and provides me guidelines to re-structure atomic analogy for ECSU paradigm in accordance with the mainstream physics, in that gravity is considered as a tensor product on eigen-rotation of string-segments.

While describing the Protium atom by this paradigm, its proton is assumed to have a cluster of spin-simplex, while its electron is a single spin-simplex. An Eigen-rotational string-segment, extents from the spin-simplex cluster to the single spin-simplex of electron and determines the orbital.

The Protium atom model defined by this paradigm may correspond to the black hole, while the eigen-rotational string-matter segment that reaches it may join with the string-matter cluster of its proton that is non observational directly from outside. Any increase in eigen-rotational energy may radiate through the spin-simplex of electron of that Protium atom, that correspondence with Hawking radiation.

Thus your work is highly compatible with ECSU paradigm and with this I congratulate you for this essay.

With best wishes,

Jayakar

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 07:18 GMT

Dear Jayakar,

Thanks for your kind words.

I am honoured by your idea that my concept on quantum gravity is new and I am happy that it can help you to re-structure atomic analogy for ECSU paradigm in accordance with the mainstream physics. I think that the correspondence between my BH model and the Protium atom by ECSU paradigm cannot be a coincidence as this kind of coincidences do not exist in science. Thanks for your kind congrats for my Essay, I hope that you will rate it accordingly. If my work is highly compatible with ECSU paradigm maybe we could collaborate in the future.

Cheers,

Ch.

Ch.,

Let me get this out of the way first, I feel this essay does not match the topic. The people running this contest (who are far smarter and better looking than me) must feel your essay does parallel the topic because it is here.

Temperature is not Gage invariant (entropy is the invariant). How can you have an effective temperature for a black hole? What frame is that temperature measured?

I need to re-read your essay because I am sure I will have more questions.

All the best,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 29, 2014 @ 21:47 GMT

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your comments. Your criticisms are quite welcome because they permit me to clarify some points.

Concerning the issue that my essay does not match the topic, I think that an important way humanity can steer the future is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. Two fundamental points are that we well understand what are space and time and how must we handle quantum objects. Quantum gravity is the synthesis of these two issues. Also, various researchers think that understanding quantum gravity is also important for realizing quantum computers, which should be the future of collecting and handling information. Realizing a definitive model of quantum BH is fundamental for this task, as it is a general opinion that BHs are the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity in the same way that atoms are the fundamental bricks of quantum mechanics. It is also my conviction that, without basic research in physics, we cannot have further progress in medicine, technology, nuclear power, nano-structures etc.

Concerning the point that temperature should be not gauge (you wrote Gage) invariant but entropy should be the invariant instead, I suspect that you are not an expert of black hole thermodynamics. In fact, in a black hole the Hawking temperature is inversely proportional to the mass, which is proportional to the Schwarzschild radius, which is proportional to the square root of the horizon area, which, based on the Bekenstein-Hawking formula, is proportional to the entropy. Clearly, if the entropy is gauge invariant, the Hawking temperature must be gauge invariant too. The effective temperature results to be the inverse of average value of the Hawking temperature before the emission of a particle and of the Hawking temperature after the emission of the particle. In a certain sense it is the temperature of the horizon during the emission of the particle.

I look forward to see your other questions.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Jeffrey Michael Schmitz replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 13:17 GMT

Christian,

Yes, you are correct I know nothing of the thermal dynamics of black hole (and my spelling is poor). I am sure Hawking explained the temperature in the context of general relativity, I was hoping there was a simple explanation that I could understand. There is going to be a gravitational red-shift and the blackbody radiation would appear different for different observers, this must be for a distant observer away from the gravity well.

Thank you for your reply,

Jeff

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 2, 2014 @ 21:11 GMT

Dear Jeff,

Thanks for your reply. Your point that there is going a gravitational red-shift and the blackbody radiation would appear different for different observers is surely correct. In my Essay I discuss Hawking radiation as tunnelling and, as in this case the radial trajectory is relevant, I implicitly assume the Schwarzschild radial coordinate.

Cheers,

Ch.

show all replies (2 not shown)

Dear Christian,

I have read and understood much of your essay. Your "Bohr-like" model based on "quasi-normal modes" treated as black hole quantum levels is fascinating, as well as your emission formulas and equation 3.

I do agree with you that Bekenstein-Hawking entropy will not be the whole answer to quantum gravity, but is very interesting that your work returns the Bekenstein area quantization result.

My own appreciation of gravity is in flux right now, as I have recently read many challenges to current theory, even to the existence of horizons. Your essay requires much more than one reading to digest, and, as I hope to return to gravity later this year, I have printed it out and will reread it as necessary to comprehend.

Congratulations on a novel approach and good luck with your work and with this contest.

I very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 08:20 GMT

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your very interesting comments and for appreciating my work. Yes, I completely agree with you that returning the Bekenstein area quantization result is a key point as it cannot be a coincidence.

I am honoured that you decided to print my Essay and further analyse it. Please, be free to send me further comments/suggestions if you will return to gravity later this year. They will be warmly welcome.

Thanks again!

I wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian

Your paper is highly technical and I need to reread the non-mathematical parts again to understand it. Congratulations for having the stamina and imagination to engage in this difficult and fascinating subject.

Best wishes

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 30, 2014 @ 16:55 GMT

Hi dear Vladimir,

Thanks for reading my Essay. I hope that your rereading will help you for a better understanding. In any case, if you need some clarification you are warmly welcome.

Thanks for your congrats. Actually, working on black holes is very funny from my point of view.

Thanks again and best luck for the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

I think you essay is excellent and ground breaking. It perhaps would have been helpful for me to clarify early what the Bohr model is and means, and to revert a little less to mathematics, but those are negligible considerations in the greater picture. I'm pleased to find myself able to score it highly and wish you much luck in the judging.

Judy

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on May. 31, 2014 @ 08:14 GMT

Hi Judy,

Thanks for your kind words and for your high rating which honour my work.

Concerning the points you raise:

i) Bohr's atomic model, introduced by N. Bohr in 1913, describes the atom in terms of a small and positively charged nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons travelling in circular orbits around the nucleus. Thus, it is similar in structure to the...

view entire post

Hi Judy,

Thanks for your kind words and for your high rating which honour my work.

Concerning the points you raise:

i) Bohr's atomic model, introduced by N. Bohr in 1913, describes the atom in terms of a small and positively charged nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons travelling in circular orbits around the nucleus. Thus, it is similar in structure to the solar system. Bohr's model obeys to three laws: 1) Electrons orbit the nucleus. 2) Electrons' orbits are stable and electrons cannot radiate (in contrast with classical electromagnetics) in such "stationary orbits". These orbits correspond to definite energies and are also called "energy shells" or "energy levels" in quantum terms. 3) Electrons can only gain and lose energy when they jump from one allowed energy level to another. In that case, they absorb or emit electromagnetic radiation and the frequency of the emission/absorption is determined by the energy difference of the levels according to the Planck relation. In my model the "electrons" are the black hole quasi-normal modes, interpreted in terms of particles quantized in circumferences, and the emitted particles are Hawking quanta. The first and second laws are completely satisfied.The third is partially satisfied in the sense that again quasi-normal modes can only gain and lose energy when they jump from one allowed energy level to another, but in this model the frequency of the emission/absorption is determined by the energy difference of the levels according to eq. (11) in my Essay.

ii) Concerning reverting a little less to mathematics,I founded this Essay on a more technical research paper published in C. Corda, "Black hole quantum spectrum", Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2665 (2013). Here I tried to simplify the discussion and I tried to use the end notes for giving my results in more simple terms. My computations in the Essay should be at the level of a course of quantum mechanics in a University. In any case, I will try to further reduce mathematical formalism in my next works in future Contests.

Thanks again, I am going to read, comment and rate your Essay in next days. also wish you best luck in the Contest.

Cheers,

Ch.

view post as summary

Hello Mr. Corda,

You will find my essay - Imagining the future humanity - at

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2096

Among other things I write about the analogous imagining (you may be interested as you yourself use analogous reasoning in your essay)

Sincerely,

Margarita Iudin

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 1, 2014 @ 07:36 GMT

Hi Margarita,

Thanks for infos on your Essay. I will surely read, comment and rate it in next days.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hello Christian,

As an appeal for correspondence and exchange of ideas between FQXi members I have send you my books on your email address.

Their content is not only a new approach in the understanding of the Universe, but a new sort of physics, because in my study of the physical laws I had to give a new definition of time and space regarding the sequence and nature of their creation.

For some myths Egyptologists use the phrase: “divine mystery” the reading of which helps me to understand the cosmic mysteries. This understanding I gain by running the myth “through the prism” created by the physical laws and I decipher the formed image.

I hope that this will help you in your own field and in your studies.

Best wishes,

Petio

report post as inappropriate

Hi Petio,

Thanks for your message. Actually, I just checked my email and I did not find your message with the attached book. Please, can you kindly re-send it? My email is cordac.galilei@gmail.com.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Christian, I agree that understanding fundamental physics is an important part of steering our future. I did not have the courage to use that angle myself, but perhaps it was what the sponsors were hoping for.

I think the transition from black hole states to particle spectrum is an important thing to understand in QG, so your approach here is very much appreciated. Good luck.

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 08:51 GMT

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your kind words and for appreciating my Essay. Yes, I interpreted the topic of this Essay Contest in the sense that understanding fundamental physics is an important part of steering our future. Maybe it was what the sponsors were hoping for. Let us see what will happen.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

You have written an amazing essay which deserves a high rating.

I will comment the subjects of your essay from the viewpoint of the General Theory of Unity. Black holes are known since ancient times. The understanding of black holes is of great importance for the passing of each cycle. The hardest questions have very “simple” answers, which are difficult to discover and understand. In this point I cannot say what exactly a black hole is.

Quantum gravity does not exist. Gravity is the continuum time/space which by the definition of the General Theory of Unity consists of separate specific “stages” or “borders” but these are not quanta.

Space has seven dimensions all that exists has its “specific” borders for each dimension. These stages can be measured for any existing thing.

I wish you the best of luck on the competition.

Best wishes,

Petio

P.S. I suggest you work on the following subjects:

1. Definition of the General Theory of the continuum time/space;

2. Definition of the General Theory of Quanta from the General theory of Unity’s point of view.

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 13:06 GMT

Dear Petio,

Thanks for your kind words with nice judgement on my work.

Your idea that quantum gravity does not exist is respectable. Sometimes I have doubts on its existence too.

I am happy to know that my work could be connected with your General Theory of Unity. As I previously told you, I am going to read your books on it soon.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

You have written an interesting essay and deserves a high rating. It is not completely related to the theme (I think). In any case, I have read it with interest (in my currently busy day), and will leave the details for a proper analysis opportunely. (We do have similar names and interests! Another one with similar name and interests here in the competition).

Best wishes and good luck!

Christine

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 12:58 GMT

Dear Christine,

Thanks for your kind words with the nice judgement on my Essay.

Concerning the issue that my essay is not related to the theme, here is my point of view. I think that an important way humanity can steer the future is to improve our knowledge of the fundamental laws of nature. Two fundamental points are that we well understand what are space and time and how must we handle quantum objects. Quantum gravity is the synthesis of these two issues. Also, various researchers think that understanding quantum gravity is also important for realizing quantum computers, which should be the future of collecting and handling information. Realizing a definitive model of quantum BH is fundamental for this task, as it is a general opinion that BHs are the fundamental bricks of quantum gravity in the same way that atoms are the fundamental bricks of quantum mechanics. It is also my conviction that, without basic research in physics, we cannot have further progress in medicine, technology, nuclear power, nano-structures etc. In other words, I interpreted the topic of this Essay Contest in the sense that understanding fundamental physics is an important part of steering our future. Clearly, this is only a personal opinion, and maybe I am wrong.

By the way, I am curious to know who is another one with similar name and interests here in the competition. I am going to check.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

I played around with Excel last night and came up with a way to predict the contest winner. Basically, by downloading all the data pertinent to this contest such as the title of the essay, how many posts, the community rating, the public rating, how many community ratings and how many public ratings, and one more column for a combination of all the ratings and how the essay judges are likely to weight all the columns with respect to eachother, it spits out an answer.

With all those numbers, I sorted on each column and changed the color of the top 10 essays in each column. Then when it was all done I just looked for the "most colorful essay".

And the winner (will likely be)...

Open Peer Review to Save the World by Philip Gibbs

#2: Recognizing the Value of Play by Jonathan J. Dickau

#3: Bohr-like model for black holes: the route for quantum gravity by Christian Corda

#3 wins the slot because the contest judges will want to be science-minded. That's why Corda will likely win out over the Honorable Mention

How to save the world by Sabine Hossenfelder

because #3 is very science-y and #4 is a bit more of a preachy title without as much of a hint towards what the essay is about.

Well, there's my prediction. It was enjoyable to participate in this contest. By my own criteria, my essay wasn't "colorful" at all. Maybe the judges will score highly on ease of understanding and practicality? Nahh, the guys who are at the top of this list still do very well in such categories.

Good luck to you all.

Kevin O

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 14, 2014 @ 18:47 GMT

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your message.

Your predicting the contest winner is intriguing. Maybe you are correct. In my opinion, the Essays of Philip and Jonathan are among the most beautiful of this Contest. On the other hand, your point that the contest judges will want to be science-minded is in agreement with the spirit for which I wrote my Essay. Thus, I should sign up your predictions. Concerning the Essay of Dr. Hossenfelder, I did not read it, thus, I cannot judge.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Congratulations with your high score in the community rating and the participating in the finalists pool.

I thank you for the positive comment on my thread and wish you good luck (better as the in the former contest) in the "final judgement".

best regards

Wilhelmus

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 15, 2014 @ 07:27 GMT

Hi Wilhelmus,

Thanks for your congrats, which I reciprocate as I see that you are a Finalist too. Reading your Essay was my pleasure. I also wish you best luck for the "final judgement". Let us cross the fingers.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Thank you for reviewing my paper. It is just something I threw together in a couple of days based upon the huge volume of knowledge that I have posted on ToeQuest under "Tuck's Theory of Everything." If you knew my equations as in-depth as I do then you would realize how incredible they truly are in completing the puzzle in Physics. I don't expect support from a career...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

Thank you for reviewing my paper. It is just something I threw together in a couple of days based upon the huge volume of knowledge that I have posted on ToeQuest under "Tuck's Theory of Everything." If you knew my equations as in-depth as I do then you would realize how incredible they truly are in completing the puzzle in Physics. I don't expect support from a career physicist because it is conflicting to their competing interests. I know that I have figured-out the Quantum Mechanics of gravitation and how the equations of Physics link to Chemistry. There is a final chapter that I haven't revealed that should yield an object-oriented simulation of atomic elements and the solution to the N-body Problem. I have posted most of my scientific work freely, but I see no incentive to disclose the final piece of the puzzle which would further empower my equations. The equations are hierarchical in the sense that they can be expressed and integrated with lower-level string functions that are hidden just under the surface. I need to further challenge the flaws that are present within many of the most popular theories by gaining formal publication, but having pushed myself to the limits of mental fatigue only to have to fight the broken system of academia is rather disheartening. I don't care about politics, prestige, or power; I only care about Science. Also, I still have a life to live and 5-years devotion without any compensation for all my hard work is demoralizing to say the least. As a truck driver, I face danger every day out on the road. I'm probably going through a mid-life crisis because I want to get a motorcycle, but I'm sure nobody would really morn the loss of my intellectual ability within the world (if such risk-taking proved to be too great). However, I don't want to wake-up one day and say, I wasted my life trying to attain the recognition that I deserve (in order to gain access to a better life and much needed project funding). It looks like my career path is Truck Driving. As astonishing as it seems, it is much easier to finish the work of Einstein than it is to get credit for accomplishing such an amazing feat!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Dear Stephen,

Thanks for clarifying.

I wish you good luck for your future career path whatever it will be (Truck Driving or Science).

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

Thanks, you appear to be a pretty good guy that gets alone with others. I'm sure that I will have additional contributions because it is hard to pull away completely from Science. However, most of the excitement of discovery is behind me. My forum is like a journal that of my theoretical chronicles. I believe that my work solves the Mass-Gap Problem but since I have found my theory to be an extended Kaluza-Klein Theory, I don't see it as truly compatible with Yang-Mills Theories. It would take a lot of work sorting through the formalisms and mathematics of each theoretical construct to define the exact divergences. It would be much easier for me to seek credit for my simple yet profound physics discoveries because if I cannot attain academic support on them, then there is no hope of doing it for more complex problems. I think that it takes a lot of foundational knowledge for others to understand my theoretical work because it relies upon previously unknown energy mechanics. It seems that the path to the Theory of Everything is a path least traveled that isn't a path approved by the high and mighty institutions of Science. Someday they will either acknowledge my accomplishments and act like they aren't part of the problem or they will ignore my work completely using a contrived solutions or attribute my work to others that walked far behind me. It seems that Science is slow to advance and even slower to admit its faults!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

report post as inappropriate

Author Christian Corda replied on Jun. 23, 2014 @ 06:54 GMT

Dear Stephen,

In order to be considered by the Scientific Community, it is important that your theory will become a viable extension of standard physics. In particular, as you cite the Kaluza-Klein Theory, I hope you will agree that it will be nice if your ideas can be mathematically related [via dynamical laws] to that existing theory. I suggest you to write a paper on the connection between your theory and the Kaluza-Klein framework, without exaggerating with your claims, and to send it to an important journal. Science works step by step, if you claim to have finalized Einstein's work, nobody will consider you.

Cheers,

Ch.

Stephen Tuck replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 00:21 GMT

Dear Christian,

I believe that you are correct, I need to formally build a bridge to connect (and/or refute) existing theories. Honestly, I am mathematically certain that I have unified Gravitation and the Electromagnetic Force. I believe that was Einstein's goal because it is in essence the Unified Field Equation. However, there is still more work to be done to mathematically model all...

view entire post

Dear Christian,

I believe that you are correct, I need to formally build a bridge to connect (and/or refute) existing theories. Honestly, I am mathematically certain that I have unified Gravitation and the Electromagnetic Force. I believe that was Einstein's goal because it is in essence the Unified Field Equation. However, there is still more work to be done to mathematically model all matter-energy interactions through internal hierarchical, vectorial extensions of the equation. You appear to have faith in the current system of scientific discovery that utilizes institutionalized editorial oversight and the peer-review process to regulate what content is permissible within the scientific journals of academic repute. I have personally experienced that some journals exclude content merely because it is controversial in nature. Any correction or extension of Special Relativity or General Relativity is automatically controversial and the Unified Field Equation cannot be specified without such controversial modifications. I might be able to get some papers accepted, but it is a painstakingly-slow and laborious process. The question that begs an answer is whether truly revolutionary breakthroughs that fly-in-the-face of popular academic thought will ever be embraced if proven correct through mathematical and empirical evidence. Without formal educational training or title, I may not be considered a "peer" although I believe that Ph.D's are closest to my level of knowledge and understanding in regards to advanced physics. Additionally, there is somewhat of a language barrier because I have to formally redefine my scientific work into previously designated terminology where I have invented my own vocabulary for explaining the concepts of my mathematical theory. I may say "photonic-string manifold" for a compact principle fiber bundle and things like non-abelian aren't even useful in my theories because everything is perfectly commutative in physical reality. It is kinda difficult finding the incentive to write a formal paper for someone who works 60-70 hours a week as a truck driver and doesn't get paid anything for their intellectual hardwork. I don't even have a computer to write my paper, but things are starting to get better with my newfound job stability (so I will purchase a laptop). It will just take some time but I expect that things won't be easy because even when people are confronted with undeniable mathematical truth and logic, they still don't wish to concede to another person's great accomplishments (due to pride and stubbornness). Those lingering doubts make me feel like I am wasting my time even trying to fight the established system of things. Five-years of isolation being completely wrapped-up in Quantum Mechanics is a long-time for a non-academic like myself. I have learned so much about the mechanics of the universe at the quantum-level through my equations, but I have also missed-out on really living my life because my life was those equations. Once you can trace the connections between everything mathematically through the equations then everything makes sense. It takes a deep devotion to understand all the physical parameters of the universe and how there are mathematically connected to each other. That is why I exhibit such arrogance and confidence in my work because I understand things at the deepest, most fundamental level so intimately. There have been many great flaws made in popularized scientific theory and even the International System of Units has artifacts such as decimal shifts both for practicality and out of ignorance. Understanding of Planck Units is absolutely imperative because those are the natural units of the Equation of Everything. It certainly is a difficult endever to get everyone on the bandwagon with me because I am one person that is battling the conflicting interests of many. Understanding nature is one thing whereas formally explaining it and getting a consensus among academics is something entirely different!

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Stephen Tuck replied on Jun. 28, 2014 @ 01:50 GMT

Dear Christian,

Here is a hand-written derivation of the Unified Field Equation. I think that seeing it greatly enhances a person's understanding of my intellectual accomplishment. It isn't the best quality because I uploaded it to ToeQuest through a photo upload to my Facebook account from my iPhone. However, I believe it is clearly legible and still rather awe-inspiring!

http://www.toequest.com/forum/attachment.php?a
ttachmentid=3124&d=1403919369

Sincerely,

Stephen Tuck

report post as inappropriate

show all replies (1 not shown)