Search FQXi


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

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

Contests Home


Previous Contests

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

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

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

read/discusswinners

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

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

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

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

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

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Cristinel Stoica: on 1/3/10 at 9:42am UTC, wrote Thank you, Ray. I called it "marblewood" because I propose an...

Ray Munroe: on 1/3/10 at 2:28am UTC, wrote Dear Cristi, I read your essay yesterday, and apologize once more for not...

Cristinel Stoica: on 11/7/09 at 7:32am UTC, wrote Dear Edwin, I also enjoyed much our discussions, and I wish to thank you, ...

Jayakar Joseph: on 11/7/09 at 1:28am UTC, wrote Dear Cristinel Stoica, In a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model;...

Edwin Klingman: on 11/4/09 at 23:36pm UTC, wrote Dear Christi, I'm glad that you think that there is something better than...

Cristinel Stoica: on 11/3/09 at 8:19am UTC, wrote Dear Narendra, I am certain that your experience is of great value, and I...

Narendra Nath: on 11/3/09 at 0:22am UTC, wrote Very nice response. You recollect i am no longer an active physicist and i...

Cristinel Stoica: on 11/2/09 at 16:51pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Klingman, I think that there is something better than the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Marblewood: A Gentle Unification of Quantum Theory and General Relativity by Cristinel Stoica [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 12:12 GMT
Essay Abstract

I propose a gentle (requiring minimal changes to both theories) reconciliation of Quantum Theory and General Relativity. The program for obtaining this reconciliation is to show that: * It is impossible to keep the wavefunction collapse as a discontinuity in the unitary evolution of a quantum system, without violating the local conservation laws. * It is ultimately possible: - to explain the apparent wavefunction collapse without appealing to discontinuous jumps - to account for the Bell correlations, without appealing to nonseparable states - to construct the quantum fields in a manner compatible with General Relativity, by using classical fields partitions - to clarify the quantum measurements and the interface between the quantum and classical levels - to have a nicely behaved energy-momentum tensor of the quantum fields (required by Einstein's equation, which connects the quantum fields with geometry) - to have a consistent theory of Gravity and Quantum Standard Model

Author Bio

Cristi Stoica has a master’s degree in Differential Geometry with applications in Physics, and is enrolled in a doctoral program on the Fiber Bundle Geometry. He works as a computer programmer in the field of Computational Geometry. The present essay is based on the author’s independent research.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Cristi Stoica wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 16:27 GMT
In the attached document I develop in more detail some of the ideas in the essay.

attachments: marblewooddetail.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Uncle Al wrote on Sep. 29, 2009 @ 19:29 GMT
Euclid proved all triangles' three interior angles add to exactly 180 degrees. Segment of equator, two lines of longitude, and a pole on a globe of the Earth. Euclid was wrong. Classical gravitation and quantum theory founding postulates arising from deep symmetries. Einstein's elevator is too simple to fail. A lab bench can empirically disagree - then what of GR and QFT?

Massed sector anisotropic vacuum is not disallowed. Contingent (Noether's theorems) angular momentum is then not conserved. 1931 teleparallel gravitation, otherwise defaulting to GR, punctiliously describes anisotropic vacuum and its tests: angular momentum. Deeply relativistic pulsar-solar star binary PSR J1903+0327 validates GR. Only one property coupled to angular momentum remains unexamined: chirality.

Nature provides a metaphoric pair of shoes as atomic nuclei within enantiomorphic crystallographic space groups. Of 230 space groups two pairs contain no conflicting or racemic screw axes and can be grown to large machinable single crystals. Do single crystals of space groups P3(1)21 and P3(2)21 quartz or P3(1) and P3(2) glycine gamma-polymorph falsify Einstein's elevator in a parity Eotvos experiment? If so, your derivation remains seamless but its foundation fails. Universal failure of quantized gravitation then has an empirical basis. Somebody should look.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 03:38 GMT
i lost my comments before the actual posting due to the problems of continuity in the server connection for the internet service i have! You emphasize continuity through the concept of separate localizations involving classical fields partitioning. You also seem to dislike the concept of quantum gravity used to explain the lack of radiation emission from black hole structures in the cosmos. Recently i happen to see an experimental report of detection of finite radiation emission from such an object.

It all points out that we need not hurry publicatioons baeed on half cooked ideas/concepts. Instead we need to broaden the concepts with harmony to cover as wide a ground in Physics as possible. After all we do not want Physics as a discipline to end soon! Striving for better and better relative truths has led to progress thus far. Let us break some ground conceptually before doing our theoretical corollaries or experimental titbits to earn publication and have our names on board! No criticism meant as a person is entitled to earn his living . But then persuit of Physics has been a lofty profession in the good old days when even a patent office clerk came up with path breaking discoveries. That spirit needs revival and it does not matter we praise personalities involved all the time.After all we all getting paid for doing Physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Sep. 30, 2009 @ 05:07 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

Invalidation of General Relativity will invalidate my theory too.

Dear Narendra,

Thank you for the patience and time you invested in reading this essay, and its author. You say:

"You also seem to dislike the concept of quantum gravity used to explain the lack of radiation emission from black hole structures in the cosmos. Recently i happen to see an experimental report of detection of finite radiation emission from such an object."

Your conclusion is rushed. My work does not contradict Hawking radiation, and also provides mechanism for quantizing gravity (section 7).

You also say:

"After all we do not want Physics as a discipline to end soon!"

I think that you should not worry about this. Even if my research program, or others (like string theory or LQG) will lead to unification of QT and GR, and even if we will completely know the laws of physics, the mystery is here to stay. So, don't worry.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



NN wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 03:17 GMT
oorry, i misunderstood you about Quantum gravity. The ater coent on end of Physics was just lighthearted.

I am fascinated by the non-unification of gravity with other 3 fields of interaction. I somehow feel gravity has two components like the strong nuclear field. It can be strongly repulsive, say at the birth of universe to create very very quickly the original extended universe. Then it continues to have two components, one attractive that we all are familiar with. The other, i suspect, continues to be strongly repulsive that we have termed as dark energy, resulting in expanding acceleration of visible world by the dark matter world. The dark matter and visible matter both have come from the same primordial matter. I have a hunch that the latter consists of heavy quarks which are in free state there. The same got into the bound state in the visible world to give rise to nuclei/ atoms, the baryonic component.

It is all imagination, what you feel about such conjectural concepts!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 07:26 GMT
The first sentence in my above post have gone haywire! It should read ' i misunderstood you quantum gravity. The other comment re. the end of physics was just made in a lighthearted manner.'

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 1, 2009 @ 20:27 GMT
> I am fascinated by the non-unification of gravity with other 3 fields of interaction.

Some particles don't feel the strong force, some don't interact electromagnetically, or weakly. But they all interact gravitationally. The three forces of the Standard Model are based on the degrees of freedom of "internal" spaces - the fibers of the gauge bundles. Gravity is based on spacetime dimensions. They are distinct in nature. They are united by the fact that the fields' Lagrangians have energy-momentum tensors, and these are, via Einstein's equation, sources of gravity. There is no need to try to unify the Standard Model forces with gravity in the same way electromagnetic force was unified with the weak one. Gravity's source is the energy, and electro-weak and strong fields have energy, like all matter fields. This is the way they are united: all fields are sources of gravity. I see no reason to try to unify the field with its energy-momentum more than they are unified by the relation

field -> Lagrangian -> energy-momentum -> gravity

Well, one good reason seems to be that the fields are quantized, and gravity not. But if we use the partition field approach to quantization, the quantization (partitionability) is inherited from fields to energy-momentum, hence to gravity.

If we insist to treat in the same manner all the four forces, we can consider the Standard Model fiber bundle as a manifold itself, as in the Kaluza-Klein theory, with some constrains imposed to the extra dimensions, and obtain thus a unification between gravity and other forces. But then, we need to explain 1. the constrains, 2. the relation given by the Einstein's equation between the matter and gravity, which now becomes artificial, being a relation between distinct components of the metric. There are also other approaches, based in general on the idea of identifying the Lorentz group, as well as the Standard Model group, with subgroups of a larger simple group.

But I think that it would be forced to treat identical gravity and the three Standard Model forces.

On the other hand, I believe that it is natural to search deeper connections between the three Standard Model forces, since there are some remarkable coincidences there.

Bookmark and Share



Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 2, 2009 @ 05:03 GMT
I respect community's sacred right to secret rating. I thank to those who already rated my essay, for their attention. I would like to see also their arguments on the essay, which is in fact the reason I posted it here. I expect to find mistakes, and I am interested both in the small ones, and (especially) in the critical ones. Thanks.

Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 08:09 GMT
Sometimes it becomes difficult to convey to others what you really mean. Also, when one says something the other understands it differently to what the other was conveying. Thus, individual understandings of one another turns into misunderstandings and due to the human etiquette one somehow try to polish up such iddues. The human mind needs to be simple and innocent and yet very alert and full og high degree of intution. All these present complicities in the discussion on such forums.

i have kept to the generalities as i find myself unable to judge the essay because of my very limited theoratical knowledge, being a hard core experimentalist. i appear as an isolated person on this forum inthis sense! But i do enjoy reading the essays that interest me, nearly a dozen thus far.May i recommend one by Tejinder Singh of TIFR, Mumbai where he taqlks of the significance of a mesoscopic region in between the quantum and the classical domain!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 12:13 GMT
Great! Four of a kind: aces plus six!

Bookmark and Share



Leshan wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

I'm glad to see your essay at competition. However, there are many essays at competition which tries to unify all interactions and quantum mechanics. In my view, all these attempts are doomed to failure because of our poor knowledge. What is mass and inertia? Why particles have quantum behaviour? What is space-time? Nobody knows the answers but all they builds TOE-like or unification theories. Imagine the creation of TOE in days of Newton.

Sincerely, Leshan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 3, 2009 @ 17:22 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan,

Thank you for your observations. I admire the guys trying to find the TOE, and I think we should never stop trying to understand, including the problems you raised.

My aims are more modest, I just propose a research program of unification of quantum theory and general relativity, and present the steps I done so far.

Success,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Leshan ,

You say

What is mass and inertia?

The rotating spheres simply ,the rotations of quantum spheres imply mass .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 5, 2009 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Mr. Leshan,

You say:

"What is mass and inertia? Why particles have quantum behaviour? What is space-time? Nobody knows the answers but all they builds TOE-like or unification theories."

Spacetime = differentiable manifold. Matter = fields on spacetime. Energy-momentum tensor is associated to the matter fields Lagrangian, and it gives the spacetime curvature via Einstein equation. Integrate the energy-momentum's time component on a spacelike hypersurface - the space - and obtain the mass, and inertia. In my essay I provided a possible answer to your question about the quantum behavior.

These answers may not satisfy everyone, being mathematics, but mathematics is about relations, and these relations are what we can get. When we say we look for the unification, we mean that we look for a description of these relations, nothing more.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 6, 2009 @ 13:39 GMT
Dear Dr. Leiter,

Thank you for your appreciation. I look forward to read your essay. Until then, I will appreciate your comments too.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



NN wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 14:38 GMT
Cristi, i have nothing much to add to my earlier post that you responded well. One word of advice will be that one should question the concepts evolved thus far too. Go on pushing them up with mathematical tools may result in a monster that will become too complex to treat. Nature is not complex. It has a dominant component of logic and an implicit component of random nature of individual processes as studied experimentally and also implemented into a mathematical theory. Give importance to concepts and available data before working out the Mathematical forms. Akso, there arises the question of significant/relevant variables and their weightages and boundary conditions applicable. Only then a theory becomes worthy of calculating the results of theoretical predictions.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Oct. 7, 2009 @ 17:28 GMT
Cristi

An interesting read. As you invited comment I'm delighted to offer some.

I believe some of your concepts are incisive, but be warned I do so for two other; reasons; I too have strong input from though processes beyond those of classical physics academia, and I firmly believe I have put together the correct strategic picture. (though it necessarily eschewed mathematics).

You are possibly hampered by not reconsidering conserved photons. But your concept of field partitions leads (I believe) in the right direction. My own earlier essay 495(and link in the posts) paints a fuller picture, but also reflects on art appreciation. I hope you may return the compliment.

Links can be tiresome, but, for your own satisfaction, you may better judge for yourself from http://vixra.org/abs/0909.0047

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 06:08 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I feel that I have to develop more my ideas, both conceptually, as you say, and mathematically. My essay contains the results of my research, and is not a popularization paper. One can't claim profound results in physics, and present them only in story-telling language, but I hope to find time to put here some posts explaining the ideas with more stories and fewer maths.

You say "Nature is not complex". I did not contradict you. And the simplicity of nature is visible in its mathematical formulation. Let's take Dirac's equations, all condensed in F=dA and d*F=J. If you develop these equations, you can write an entire book on electromagnetism. Nature is simple, its manifestation is complex. You can explain in stories and drawings electric and magnetic fields. When Maxwell unified them, he used math. He could not explain with non-mathematical concepts the unification, although he spent many years searching for gear mechanisms. Nature's simplicity and unity is revealed through mathematics. Natural languages and our natural thinking simply don't have the concepts to describe everything. Mathematics expands our mind and language to understand subtler stuff. Please try, as an exercise, to explain yourself without mathematical concepts what the spin of a particle is. Its main characteristics are not explainable in terms of rotations or other stuff you find in day by day experience.

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 06:09 GMT
Dear Peter,

Thank you for your nice comment. I look forward to read your essay, to understand better what you mean.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



NN wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Cristi,

i fing your latest post much to my satisfaction. Ideas only come through inspiration and not mathematical relations. The ideas get crystalized with mathematical formulation. My quote on Enstein about the great discoveries of 1905 clearly demonstrate such sequences. The beauty of mathematics is something to admire as it crystalizes the ideas into a concise relationship. But wrong ideas can also lead an acceptable and beautiful Mathematics but the net gain for Physics may well be nil. Have balance between the concepts and the tools of Physics via Experimentation and Mathematical theories

These appear as mere words and may well be misunderstood if we are not in yune with one another because of different background, training and experience. here comes the role of good teachers. i have met and seen great physicists who can not explain their own works to others to comprehend. At the same time there ia another person who has not done much research but is able explain the works of others far more clearly than the ones who have done the job! The complexities come due to the nature of the mind, command over language, emphasis on main points and eliminating details that may well be confusing to the person who has not done the job but is keen to learn about it. Hans Bethe was a great researcher but Weisskopf was a great teacher.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 20:42 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica

From the phenomenological point of view quantum theory and GR can not be unified

because of belief space-time being fundamental arena of the universe.

Quanta and massive bodies move in cosmic space that is timeless. Time in space is only run of clocks. From this point of view unification is possible.

I try my best with articles on file attached...

view entire post


attachments: Densitycurvature.pdf, Mathematical_Spacetime....pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Darryl Jay Leiter wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Stephan, Georgina, Tejinder, Cristi, and Amrit,

I would like to draw your attention to the summary of comments between myself and Jonathan in regard to the observer-participant MC-QED formalism", which are presented below. Since many of you have been skeptical about the ideas

present in my essay it would be helpful to me if we could we have critical group discussion on these...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 16:40 GMT
Dear Christi ,

You work is interesting .That said ,I have some suggestions .

I think that a concept takes all its sense when the physicality and the mathematical extrapolations are correlated ,in harmony.

If the imaginaries are inserted ,it's a lost of time it seems to me.

The maths are a tool ,the physic is real .The math is a human invention ,not the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Steve,

Thank you for your time to read and discuss my essay, and for sharing me your thoughts.

I agree with you that math should be in harmony with the physical reality (at least when we try to use mathematics to describe physics). I think that mathematicians are not necessarily inclined to applications, and I respect their right to explore mathematical structures for their intrinsic beauty, but I assure you that in my essay I tried not to use more math than the description of the laws of the physical universe require. If I deviate from the physical reality, then please show me where and how. Such a deviation is, for my purpose, a mistake, and I want to correct it.

I tried to capture the physical laws, and I don't know another way to do this, but to express the relations. And the language of relations is the language of mathematical structures. I cannot think at more "physical concepts", because I only perceive relations. And even if there is something else, then I limited my explorations to the relations, and this is all I try to capture here.

What more "physical concepts" are available to me? Apples, stars, clouds? These are even more complex and more difficult to understand, and I cannot use them to describe the foundations of physics. I can use them for only one reason: because they are more close to our experience, but they would be only metaphors - pedagogical lies.

What physical concepts can I use to describe the general relativistic idea that spacetime is curved, and that the curvature is related to matter and energy? Should I use sheets, rubber surfaces? Isn't the mathematical description more appropriate? What can I use to describe the quantum world? Is there something more "real" than the wavefunction, than the state vector? Frankly, I don't see anything more physical, more real. And I am not among the physicists claiming that quantum mechanics cannot be understood: I even claim that I understand it, and that I describe it in a consistent way. But this consistent way has to be mathematical.

You say: "The maths are a tool, the physic is real." If you want to describe the physical reality in fewer words, then the complexity must be hidden somehow in few concepts. And the science of developing complex consequences from few simple suppositions is mathematics. The key to simplicity is mathematics. The key to oversimplification is to avoid mathematics and formal logic. If you think that mathematics is invented, you are partially right: mathematical theories are invented. But when you see that distinct theories describe isomorphic structures, then you may start to believe that the structures themselves are not invented. The universe is a structure, and if it can be described by a mathematical theory, then there may be as well many other mathematical theories describing it. But the underlying structure is the same, and this is the essence.

You ask: "About strings ,what do you think ,for me a string is divisible ,a sphere no?"

In my opinion, this depends on the world in which you consider strings and spheres. In the mathematical structure I suggest for describing our world, there are no fundamental spheres and strings. In string theory, strings divide as they should.

What I try in my essay is to take two theories, quantum theory and general relativity, as they are. I do not try to explain them avoiding math, to popularize them. I just take them as they are, and they are mathematical structures. From quantum theory I eliminate some luggage I consider unnecessary, and I show that the description of reality is not affected. After this simplification, the two theories fit together very well. If we keep the extra luggage, they are incompatible. The simplification of quantum mechanics comes also with a realist view, an ontology. From this viewpoint, my theory tries to bring the mathematics of quanta closer to reality, and to our understanding.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 10:59 GMT
Hello dear Cristi,

Thanks for your explaination .I understand better your point of vue which is very interesting .

It's infact the eternal and nice fight between maths and physics .

It's complex and simple.The axiomatisation ,the formalisation is a difficult road to harmonizze the two systems .

You say

"In my opinion, this depends on the world in which you consider strings and spheres. In the mathematical structure I suggest for describing our world, there are no fundamental spheres and strings. In string theory, strings divide as they should."

However we see spheres ,spheroids ,circles ,ellipses ,ellipsoids ,tori,...everywhere in the physical world .Even our favorite sports are with spheres ,our big revolutions ,the rotations ,wheel ,motor,pullies ,gears....our seeds ,eggs ,glands ,eyes ,brains,stars ,planets ,moons....even a flower has a spherical comportment .

As you say indeed the strings divide and permits a complexification with infinite fractals ,but there a real taxonomy and topology is necessary it seems to me.

You know ,I agree withj you ,I think that maths too are a pure essence but if only and only if the maths are balanced with the pagmatism ,the universal structure and its laws.There the imaginaries are not primordials .

Personaly ,I use maths in my model but with limits for primes which are for me important in the physical link .Let's take the infinity and the zero ,if these inventions aren't harmonized ,that becomes very difficult and infinite in our extrapolations .I don't think really that it's our ultim aim .Our universal system is complex but simple too .And a global simple mechanic is necessary for this evlution .

In all case ,congratulations for your essay ,and good luck too dear Cristi

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Steve,

I don't say that in my view there are no spheres, only that they don't play a fundamental role. The examples you took from the physical world are not fundamental, although they may be important for us. Well, mathematically, we can express the same structure by distinct sets of primitives, so we can find spheres if we want, and we can even give them fundamental role. For example, the directions of the future pointing lightcone at a point in spacetime form a sphere, and Lorentz' transforms induce on this sphere a Moebius transform. Therefore, the Lorentz and the SL(2,C) symmetries are strong related to spheres. Moreover, the SU(2) group is the double cover of SO(3), which can be viewed as the group of rotations of a sphere. SU(2) is present in the gauge description of the weak force, in the definition of spinors (again related to the Lorentz group), and in the Bloch sphere (again related to spin, and to qubits). If we think at the projective spaces as complex generalization of spheres, then it is clear that all symmetries of the Standard Model, and the state spaces in quantum mechanics, are related to spheres of various dimensions. Other places where sphere appear are the electric potential levels, and the event horizons of black holes. Therefore, I think that spheres are indeed present in physics, and they have an important role. What I meant is that I did not start from the spheres as fundamental objects, but from a manifold with a metric and some sections of some fiber bundles over it.

Best wishes,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 17:27 GMT
Dear Cristi ,

Thanks for this beautiful explaination.I don't change of point of vue but it's interesting to have different point of vue .

You know ,my theory is not arrived like that .

I think what the real problems of scientists is the lack of whole ,the whole point of vue is important .Many focus on local systems with imaginary extrapolations without to insert the fundamentals and laws .

Our Universe is a sphere cristi ,not a light cone or an eternal expansion ,our system is finite and coded ,evolutives and pragmatics .

The spheres are pragmatics and fundamentals .You are ,you Cristi,a result of polarisations due to the time and you are linked with the earth ,as a baby of this earth ,you live on a sphere which evolves ,you are a part of this sphere .

Your particles are spheres ,your sun too and you are inside an Universal sphere ....thus all is made of spheres ,all without exeption.

It's always the same problem in fact pagmatism or imaginaries, EPR or Copenaghen Interpretation .Reals or imaginaries .

And furthermore all our topology is false ,because each entangled sphere is specific .Don't forget ,each sphere is specific ,unique .thus for the symmetry ,it's time to insert the real structure but it's just a suggestion .

I am going to convince you ,these quantum spheres ,coded builds spheres inside an universal sphere. hihih I am going to convice you hihih I try with Lawrence and Ray but it's not easy ,...dear Friends ...Stop these imaginaries complexs ,it's false .Only the physicality and the thermodynamics and quantum mechanics are relevant ,all has an universal simple mechanic ,the rotating spheres ,quantic and cosmologic .3 gauges cristi ...our universal sphere ...future ,maximum mass don't turn ....man central quantum sphere turns in the maximum ,polarity sense 1 ....the light second system ...the light becomes mass in time coded evolution....all that inside a beautifiul sphere in optimisation ,improvement .They are fantastics our quantum spheres ,they live.

In conclusion,The maths are only trues when the physicality is taken with its reals and specific numbers .All mathematical system must be spherical and with limits .If not it's imaginaries and without balance of harmonisation.

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 19:17 GMT
Dear Steve,

I appreciate your thoughts, and it was not my intention to make you change your viewpoint. I would not try to change anybody's view, since I know that I am limited, and one of my limitations is the inability to judge what others should think. I confess that even I am happy that each of us has his own view, because I like diversity. I just tried to make you understand my view (and not to make you accept it) because it seemed to me that you were interested in it.

You say:

"I think what the real problems of scientists is the lack of whole ,the whole point of vue is important .Many focus on local systems with imaginary extrapolations without to insert the fundamentals and laws ."

Maybe I am among the ones who don't have the view of the whole. Only someone who has the view of the whole is entitled to judge. Definitely I am not entitled to say who has it and who doesn't. Doing this would mean to make "imaginary extrapolations", and I don't want to do this. So, I am happy that you have your viewpoint, and I have mine :-)

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve D. wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 08:40 GMT
Dear cristi ,

You are right ,the diversity is fantastic ,it's important to share different point of vue .Like you say ...So, I am happy that you have your viewpoint, and I have mine :-)...me too hihi

Anybody is judge indeed,what I say is that the physic too is everywhere ,in ecology ,botany ,chemistry ,biology,astronomy ,....since I class all ,really the spherical comportment and its laws are everywhere .The whole it's that ,the same laws are in an apple ,a seed ,a human ,a star ,a particles ....all is linked fortunally.

We are all precious and uniques like our spheres ,uniques too .

Happy to discuss with you ,very interesting your point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 18:49 GMT
Dear Cristi ,

In rereading your essay ,what I like even if I disagree a little ,I see a real fundamental research about the general relativity .

Your link with dirac and the particule anti particle is interesting .

I don't agree about your definition of the gravity and some others methods but it's personal of course .

That said your method is relevant in its sense .Your quest of these hidden variables ,perhaps, will give you some resulst . Personnally I doubt .

The bell's equations and and the EPR paradox .and all that due to these fourth dimensions and the different interpretations .It's a personal choice of course and it's respectable .

The space for me curves itself due to the gravity ,this mass ,and the evolution increases this mass ,thus curves in the time constant ,I don't think that the light cone or eternal expansion or the spacetime curvature...exists ,

only the mass which curves the space in time constant ,and all that in a finite system with its specific thermodynamics laws .

I liked your words

field -> Lagrangian -> energy-momentum -> gravity

Personnally

quantum entangled spheres...rotations ...specific architecture...mv ...gravity...mass,the energy proportional of course with fields,the evolution is important about the lattices if I link with the cosmological system and its specific number of spheres too .The space and the lattices are relevant .Probably the plan system is interesting .

The moment is the rotating spheres .

Dear Cristi ,I am curious ,for you ,what are our elementary particles ,their forms ,theirs properties....it's obliged to have a physicality ,the energy is the mass ,thus the mass is physic ,thus how do you imagine our el part ,physically speaking .A liquid ,a gas ,a solid ,a wave ,a string ,a point ,a charge ....I am curious but really ,What is for you the best logic ?The system needs a balanced physicality with a specific mechanic at all scales .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 16, 2009 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Steve,

I did not explain in much detail some of the ideas in my 10 pages essay. I will use this opportunity to clarify some points.

I do not define gravity. I use the definition from Einstein's General Relativity; in fact, I keep General Relativity almost unchanged in my approach of unifying it with quantum theory. (The lightcones exist in any general relativistic spacetime, at each point, because there is a Minkowski tangent spacetime in each spacetime point. It is not important how it is curved, lightcones always exist, at each point. You seem to associate the lightcones with the infinite expansion of the universe: they have nothing to do with this.)

In Einstein's GR, which I embrace, gravitation is expressed as curvature of the spacetime, but this curvature is related with the matter fields (both fermionic and bosonic) by Einstein's equation. This equation said:

"wood's energy-momentum = marble's curvature (with the trace reversed)"

Here, "wood" = matter and "marble" = geometry. So, I kept this unchanged.

The trouble is with the quantum phenomena, which contradict General Relativity in some points. First, in quantum mechanics is admitted a discontinuous collapse, which cannot be in agreement with GR, because it would introduce a discontinuity in the spacetime too, by Einstein's equation. Second, the superposition of tensor products of state vectors, which is a solution of Schrodinger's equation for composite systems, is in fact a strange field depending on separated points simultaneously: it is not a field on spacetime, but a field in a configuration space. In my opinion, this makes it unphysical. By removing the unphysical solutions, both those of discontinuity, and those of nonseparability, the quantum fields become compatible with General Relativity. This is because a nice energy-momentum tensor can now be constructed for the quantum fields, and we can plug it in Einstein's equation. I keep Quantum Mechanics as Schrodinger intended initially, and for doing this I removed what I considered to be unphysical solutions. These solutions were kept so far because they seemed to be required by the experiments. The discontinuous collapse seemed to be required by the two-slit experiment, and I showed that this is not true. We can obtain the same effect with continuous collapse. The nonseparable states seemed to be required by the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, and other effects based on Bell correlations. I showed that the same results can be obtained with separable states, there is no need to keep the nonseparable solutions, which are not physical. The Bell correlations don't really require nonseparable states. I do not use hidden variables, as you seem to think. I just use Schrodinger's equation.

About your question "what are our elementary particles". We take a field, solution of an equation like Dirac and Maxwell. It is required to admit a partition. The particle is a part of this partition, a part of the field. A complementary understanding of particles we find in Wigner's idea that particles are representations of the Poincare group. They are fields, sometimes concentrated around one point, so that they seem point-like, and sometimes spread, and the interference makes their field/wave nature be more manifest. I will not try to tell what are these fields, I am glad to have a mathematical-relational description. I don't think that we need to construct the fields from something "physical", like ether theorists tried to do. Same for the mass. Mass appears to you as physical, because you perceive its effects. But effects means relations. The fact that we perceive the mass is only a relation between the mass and our senses. Relation is mathematics, I don't know more, and I don't claim I know more. What we mean by being physical is nothing but the relation between our body and the rest of the universe, viewed from our subjective viewpoints. The mathematics states the relations. The relations can be interpreted, as relations on sets, as in Model Theory (for example we can provide geometric interpretations). If you want more, like a substance being subject of these relations, then the substance is provided by a set, on which the relations are defined. What this set stands for, I don't know, because any new property implies a new relation, and we obtain again just a set with relations. In fact, I don't think that we can name directly any substance, only the relations. And mathematics is just a rigorous talk about relations.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



NN wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 10:47 GMT
Cristi,

i read your response to the posts by me, Steve and others. there is no denying the fact that Mathematics is the way to represent the physical facts precisely. However, what was being persued with you by others were the physical concepts that define the situation best and then to put the right mathematics to implement the same. With alternate concepts to explain a given phenomenon the mathematics applied will change although the physical phenomenon remains the same. There lies the respective emphasis of concepts, boundary conditions, the strength of the dependent and independent variables involved. All this is decided by the physical conditions, independent of the mathematics adopted to build a physical theory. yes, lately the mathematical emphasis in Physics appear to dominate while the concepts are being taken for granted, instead of reforming the same, and mathematics is leading to corollary nature of physics being done, instead of a path-breaking Physics. That is where the difference lies!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 10:57 GMT
Hi Cristi ,

Indeed you are right ,our particles are under a partition ,a symphony of oscillations .The relations between effects and causes are universals.The mass is a reality and all explainations of this system must be real even with math tools.

I disagree about your utilisation of the relativity and the metric with Minkowski.It's a choice of referential and only that in fact .

(ct,x,y,z)??,we can only orientate our space I think(x,y,z).

you say

"I do not use hidden variables, as you seem to think. I just use Schrodinger's equation."

I agree but your referential always is false for me in the whole .

Attention ,I don't say what your essay is bad ,no ,but your method in your referential isn't just for me in its universal causuality.

You use Schrodinger equations indeed but if your main referential isn't well coordonated .

We can't perceive the QM without a physicality with its causes and effects.

The light cone too must be accepted with its limits correlated with the restr. relativity .I don't agree about the events which are deconnected with the universal causuality .

The music is specific and is physic ,the harmonization of frequences evolves and complexificates with the polarisation.

The rotations are a partition where the oscillations ,the fields ,are on the symphony.The superimposings of complexification is incredible .There the gravitational spherical waves are relevant .

You say

"The fact that we perceive the mass is only a relation between the mass and our senses. "

I disagree ,the mass is the result of an equation ,encoded ,and is real in the physicality .With or without our senses ,the mass is the mass thus the gravity .Tha mass is the result of polarisations and for a beautiful music ,these polarisations must be in an universal causal mechanic .The movement of the rotating spheres is the cause of the mass ,the rot spheres are the effect of an intrinsic code .The mass is a cause too of many things .

There the time and the space are essential pieces of the evolution.

About the properties ,it exists universal constants .If we extrapolate with imaginaries and with a bad referential ,the properties are just in the mind .

A property of a thermodynamic system ,or a stable particle ,or other ...is different than a property extrapolated in my opinion .

The definition of our referential is very important, the base of the rationality must be correlated .

The relations between causuality and effects can be harmonized in a partition of physicality.All math tools are reals only if they consider the physicality and its properties.

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 17:32 GMT
Dear Cristi ,

I try to encircle your method .Could you explain your points of vue about these suggestions,please.

If your equations are non linears ,if the time isn't considered ,That becomes difficult No ?



The interpretations thus of the studied system can be surprisings and imaginaries ?

For me,The particle is a wave in its comportment in the same time ,thus the duallity is a link ,equivalent,with a specific real topology .The field and the mass are directly linked of course ,the energy ,the mass ,the fields are directly and physically correlated .

The effects of the mass are relations of course but under the same logic ,mechanic .Our perception ,our senses aren't just a relation ,applicable at the physicality .The mass is with or without a perception ,the mass is the pure physicality ,this gravity isn't just a perception of effects ,this mass increases and goes towards an ultim balance .The time is essential in its referential ,a linearity of the time is essential furthermore it seems to me .

Fields ,space,spheers ,rotations ,mass ,energy ,evolution,forces ...are all linked in a proportionality ,real and physic.

Best Rergards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 18:37 GMT
Dear Steve,

I don't say that mass and other concepts don't have independent existence. I just tried to understand what you mean by "physical", and I explained that I try to limit my description to the relations, because I don't have access to something more. Access automatically involves relations.

Dear Narendra, Dear Steve,

Thank you both for your feedback. It seems that you have some objections, either at "conceptual level", or "in the whole". It seems that my answers did not satisfy you, so perhaps I haven't understand what you mean. The terms you use, "physical" and "conceptual", seem to me too generic, so I may haven't captured the meaning you gave to them. Maybe you can be more specific, and tell me precisely one point you consider to be wrong or incomplete and why, and the alternative you propose.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 08:20 GMT
Dear Cristi ,

I am understanding .You know ,it is not objections ,simply a different point of vue .

I beleive you are a very creative scientist and your researchs are interestings .That said I just see our Universe differently .

The physicality is essential because we are inside a physical system and its specific laws .It's not a problem of capture of meaning or others but the fact to accept our fundamentals .

How can we understand our physicality without the good series ,without the right extrapolations,without our real numbers .In the physicality ,we must insert limits .A mathematic concept is false if it doesn't choose the right fundamentals .The gravity ,the mass is all and is a cause and has effects ,physics these causes and effects ,we can interpret them with math tools but with pragmatism ,rationality ,logic and fundamenatsl .

You know where I disagre ,just at the limit between reals and imaginaries ,between 3D + time constant and ct,x,y,z ,between Copenhagen and EPR,between infinity and limits,....can we all insert in our physicality ,yes if that is correlated and perfectly synchronized.

Hope you understand better my point of vue in its whole .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 09:14 GMT
Dear Steve,

As I said, it is OK to have different view points. I just want to understand yours. Let me try again to see if I understand where the disagreement you refer to is. Do you think that relativity and quantum theory cannot provide an appropriate description of the physical world, because they use complex numbers? Following this, do you think that any attempt to include them in a description of the world cannot work? Is this the reason you consider that the reconciliation I propose "doesn't choose the right fundamentals", and lack of "pragmatism ,rationality ,logic and fundamenatsl", because it is based on relativity and quantum theory?

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve D. wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 13:02 GMT
Dear Joakim,

It's ok for me too ,I just try to do the same with yours.I am going to try again too because it semms that some confusions are inserted .Let's me synchronize a little .

You asked me

"Do you think that relativity and quantum theory cannot provide an appropriate description of the physical world, because they use complex numbers?"

The quantum description ,the relativity ,the specific mechanic is bad understood in its whole due to the several bad interpretations of the universal referential .Thus indeed the utilisation of imaginaries in this case is false ,like extradimensions or others bad extrapolations .You know even if you have 95 per cent of fundamentals if in the whole the non rationality isn't taken ,it's thus false .Just for a bad referential .

The relativity is to relativate justly,thus even your referential ,your method ,your tools .

The relativity isn't to use fourth dimensions ,or others non linears systems with violations ,no to relativate ,it's to be pragmatic with our limits in accepting them ,simply .

Hope that helps .

Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve D. wrote on Oct. 18, 2009 @ 13:06 GMT
It's the reason why a model must be rational in its whole and its referential .

You can insert the complexification after inside your system but with good coordonates of course .

The whole is very very important ,the gauge in fact and its laws .

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Steve,

I appreciate your feedback, and it was pleasant to hear your viewpoint, and to have the opportunity to share mine. I hope we are both enriched by this experience.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 19, 2009 @ 18:41 GMT
Erratum:

At the page 4, the equation before the equation system (4) should be



Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 20, 2009 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Cristi ,

Thank you very much ,Me too it was likeable ,it's important to share different point of vue .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra wrote on Oct. 29, 2009 @ 05:59 GMT
A few comments for your kind considersation:-

1. Classical and quantum physics are truly the two extreme theories in the present day physics. That is why the problem arise in connecting gravity with quantum physics. There has to be a comprehensiveness witht he evolvement of a difficult in between region, called mesomorphic region by Tejinder Singh in this forum. It is now experimentally evident that the early universe can not be understood by current day Physics. Constants are not constants and even force field strenghts varied in the early universe, closer to birth.

2. The explanation of dark holes using quantum gravity has met with lot of opposition. Also, the picture is not that simple, as experimentally such objects have been observed to leak out some radiation, instead of the earlier belief of total absorption. The other thing against sych explanations lie in the increase in the size of such black holes, as reported recently on a website that a huge black hole comprising million of our sun like stars has been isolated just at the boundary of our galaxy 9milky way). i suspect that more cosmological studies conducted on the early universe will help solve many of the current difficlties in Physics that we face.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Oct. 30, 2009 @ 08:10 GMT
Dear Narendra,

Indeed, the problems you mention are important, and we need to understand them. Perhaps you are right, that new physics is needed. Or at least we need a fresh understanding of the present theories. Anyway, I think that the safest way is first to try understanding better our present theories, their limitations, their strengths, and then to change their parts which are not so well, to release the assumptions which are not really necessary. This way, new understanding and even radically new theories may emerge.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 31, 2009 @ 12:46 GMT
Hi to both of you ,

I agree ,the theories must be centralized in the fundamentals .A gauge is necessary .

It is evident that it's essential to well superimpose with rationality .It is not necessary to have many theories ,just a good gauge and inside the good datas in accepting our limits of perception and our young age .

A new physic in necessary in a whole point of vue ,there are too many losts of time in fact due probably to our global system and the individualism .

Our micro meso or macro systems are linked .To encircle our past ,firstly we' must understand our local perception .

It's logic that our cfonstants aren't constants due to the evolution ,the increase of mass ,the complexification and optimization.Thus the decimals evolve indeed but is it important to find that actually ,personaly no.

Our BH are there with a rule of complemenatrity ,a balance .The center is a sphere too with a specific rule for the dynamic of evolution and placement of spheres .All turns around the universal center .The BH are in rotations too ,several rotations .And they balance the gravity and the electromagnetism with sortings .

For the early Universe ,a specific dynamic exists too ,a placement of spheres and a increase of mass with time near cosmological spheres .In fact it's simple all is light and gravity ,two senses between the gauge ,one stable ,the other liear in evolution ,thus BH has a specific rule with light ,the re diffuse it by centers .The light is infinite thus and becomes gravity ,mass thus .All mass system are balanced in a spherical system .The centers are thus very very important in their ultim code of becoming .The gravity polarises the light due to its intrinsic code of gravity ,thus mass .....therr is thus an ultim physical aim.Thus all systems are in synchronization of gravity ,light ...we we divide a gravity system thus we take the light garvity particl association ,there I return about the sense of rot ,one stable and one linear .

If we analyze our early universe ,it's very difficult to know the real topology and volume thus impossible to see a correct variability of the constants .It's possible if we class in a real limited system where the volume of the universal sphere is considered .We can considered this volume with variables but how is the variability of the volume since the begining .The galaxies evolve too ,thus when we see our past with our datas ,it's essential to class with the rotations of galaxies around the centers ,in this logic ,we can see a galaxy and its evolution .If all turns around the center of our Universe thus all must be rethought about the datas of galaxies .Furthermore ,they spherisize themselves .All our perception in this case is different .

Sinerely

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


NN wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 01:28 GMT
Steve,

Your english has made me abit tizzy. o fault of yours, it is natural. Communication and comprehension of the same is hardly ideal the world over. people have their social and cultural and linguistic attitudes while science need to be independent of all these factors as these are not needed to understand Nature/Universe , that is common to us all. Thus, misunderstandings between us crop up and formality of friendly attitude tempers us to seek reconciiation at the cost of even hard held beliefs. Our imperfections will ensure the same in the science that we conduct. That is why i propagate the importance of Human mind and somehow discipling hte same so that has quietness when we think deeply and remove our individual biases.

Cristi,

i am not much for go on reforming existing thoeries as these modifiacations tend to be superficial/surface ones. The entire new set of concepts/precepts help build innovation that may clear up the picture better. One gets trapped in the intricacies of the existing theories and tend to make them more complex whle Nature has simplicity!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 07:02 GMT
Dear Steve, thanks for your comment.

Dear Narendra, you said:

"One gets trapped in the intricacies of the existing theories and tend to make them more complex whle Nature has simplicity!"

This is nice, and I confess that I strongly believe that the laws of Physics are simple. But I want to emphasize that this is a belief, so I have no proof. I don't know these simple laws,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Streve Dufourny wrote on Nov. 1, 2009 @ 09:10 GMT
Dear Narendra Nath ,dear Cristi,

Dear Narendra Nath ,

Sorry for my english and my lack of re writing in fact .You know I always write too quickly .I need to take some lessons about english .I writre with the distionary .Thus my grammatical technic is bad of course .

I liked your definition of sciences .Indedd they have not differences .The communication with music ,art or sciences is universal .We understand each other with this universal language ,the sciences .A flower is a flower ,a bee is a bee ,and the wind is the wind ....

It's always a pleasure to see your spirituality and your wisdom.

Dear Cristi,

You are welcome.

You speak about very interesting things .

I think the same ,simple in its whole ,complex in its details and localities and their specificities .A thing important is the simplicity of the whole ,the gauge .

It's logic to have a proportional link with forces .Like all has the maximum energy ,thus the potential is incredible .Of course we need some imprivements in the whole of our gauge .

Best Regards

Steve

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 05:05 GMT
Dear Christi,

I enjoyed your essay and appreciate your insistence that discontinuous collapse of the wave function is nonsense.

You earlier commented that "Some particles don't feel the strong force, some don't interact electromagnetically, or weakly. But they all interact gravitationally. The three forces of the Standard Model are based on the degrees of freedom of "internal" spaces -"

It would be good to keep in mind that the requirement for QED and QCD to make sense is that the Higgs boson be found, else there is no mass in these theories. While that has been admitted by a number of 'big dogs' it is generally treated as if it is not a big deal. It *is* a big deal.

As your bio indicates that you engage in independent research, I invite you to read my essay, and to note that I predict no Higgs will be found. In fact, in other comments, scattered around, I go further to predict that *no new particles* at all will show up at LHC. Thus, within a year we should have very good indication whether QCD (based on the degrees of freedom of "internal" spaces ) is still the best approach. At that time I hope you remember that there is another approach, and one that I believe you will find quite in line with your emphasis on continuity.

You further state: "They are united by the fact that the fields' Lagrangians have energy-momentum tensors, and these are, via Einstein's equation, sources of gravity. There is no need to try to unify the Standard Model forces with gravity in the same way electromagnetic force was unified with the weak one. Gravity's source is the energy, and electro-weak and strong fields have energy, like all matter fields. This is the way they are united: all fields are sources of gravity. I see no reason to try to unify the field with its energy-momentum more than they are unified by the relation"

I focus on the rotational aspect of gravity, which has recently been measured to be many orders of magnitude greater than expected (expected purely on the grounds of symmetry, no physical reason) and on the consequences of assuming a limit to curvature of this field. Rather than a charge-based theory that must (and cannot) explain mass, I assume a mass based theory and derive charge. Once the Higgs is realized not to exist, I expect a mass-based theory to attract more attention.

Finally, the aspect of field "volition" provides an "unpredictability" that is supports more of a "hidden variable" approach, with the exception that, in my theory, the hidden variable field is not deterministic.

For elementary particle theory, you can generally ignore consciousness aspects of the theory. Biology and Cosmology are where this aspect comes to the fore.

Thanks for your consideration

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 05:08 GMT
I thought I'd logged in

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 07:06 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

Thank you for your kind appreciation.

I have my own doubts about the Higgs boson, which I did not shared in the essay. You seem to believe that not finding the Higgs boson rejects the gauge theory, but the truth is that Higgs boson is not predicted by the gauge theory itself. It is added by hand, for two reasons. First, is that the gauge fields appear initially without masses, from the gauge principle, and the Higgs field can provide mass. The second reason is that it may provide a mechanism for the electro-weak symmetry breaking. For the masses, we should consider also other mechanisms. There is a component of the mass due to the field's energy, which should be considered. In curved spacetime, we need to calculate it differently, and for this we need to know better what the particles are, because we may need to consider both geometry and topology. Maybe this will provide the masses we observe. In the case of the electro-weak symmetry breaking, there are also some alternative mechanisms proposed. My guess is that the electro-weak symmetry is not exact, and there are fundamental reasons (possibly geometric) for the split in the two forces. So, I don't rely on the finding of the Higgs boson. But even if the alternative mechanisms I mentioned are true, I cannot rule out yet the possibility that the alternative mechanism may manifest as something which looks like Higgs' particle (only that it is no longer fundamental). I hope that someday clear predictions may be made, to distinguish clearly between the alternatives. In the meanwhile, for those who want the "standard Standard Model" (including the Higgs boson) be confirmed, there is always available the "ripples from the future" explanation of not observing the Higgs boson.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 07:43 GMT
Dear Christi,

Thanks for your quick response.

"You seem to believe that not finding the Higgs boson rejects the gauge theory, but the truth is that Higgs boson is not predicted by the gauge theory itself."

But in fact, the gauge theory depends on equal massless and indistinguishable bosons. An exact symmetry cannot relate particles with different properties.

You say: "It is added by hand, for two reasons. First, is that the gauge fields appear initially without masses, from the gauge principle, and the Higgs field can provide mass. The second reason is that it may provide a mechanism for the electro-weak symmetry breaking."

But the theory that I outline in my essay provides a more natural mechanism for electro-weak symmetry breaking.

You say: "For the masses, we should consider also other mechanisms. There is a component of the mass due to the field's energy, which should be considered. In curved spacetime, we need to calculate it differently, and for this we need to know better what the particles are, because we may need to consider both geometry and topology. Maybe this will provide the masses we observe."

In my theory the self-interacting C-field vortex provides the mass condensation and the chiral symmetry breaking.

Finally you "hope that someday clear predictions may be made, to distinguish clearly between the alternatives."

As I noted, I predict no Higgs will be found, and go further to predict that *no new particles* at all will show up at LHC. I do not believe anyone else is making this prediction, so you might wish to keep it in mind. As i said, I believe you will find my theory quite in line with your emphasis on continuity.

Thanks again for you essay and your comments,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 09:08 GMT
i am enjoying going through as many essays as i can & also enjoy postings. I am feeling light hearted and simply do not want to denigrate any approach unless it seems to be superficial and away from sensed reality. i believe that all three tools of science develop continually, viz. concepts/precepts, mathematics and experimental techniques. There is no such thing that one or the other conditions the growth of the other, in fact the three reinforce each other. Superiority of approach does not interest me as it is like giving emphasis to personalities. It is like not knowing the future. We really do not know which approach will evntually help solve the problem in Physics in the best way. What i feel is significant, based on my personal experiences, lies in a kind of attachment to work but non-attachment to the consequences thereof. It helps reduce bias and enhance freedon of appraoch in both thinking and execution.

In fact, i was surprised to find that i will be able to get some design and processing ideas worth Patenting when i happen to visit some industries in a friendly manner, without having any such expertise in their functioning and their background of manufacture. Knowing little helped me isolate problems and then associate the solutions from a wide background of development work that i happened to have carried in my active career , associated with the research work. It was then that i understood the significance of the synonimum ' Research & Development, called R & D popularly!

It is such a spirit of working that i recommmend to young bright scientists like Cristi and others on this forum. I suspect it may bring great laurels to their potential, instead of remaining steadfast to the task and technique they may be using to solve a particular problem in Physics. Theoreticians friendship with experimentalists and philosophic thinkers in their circle/team at the place of research/teaching can help greatly.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 2, 2009 @ 16:51 GMT
Dear Dr. Klingman,

I think that there is something better than the Standard Model. Some of the current GUTs seem to improve the things, but I hope for more. When we will understand better, maybe we will find that there is no need for the Higgs boson. As I said, there are already several alternatives. So, there are people who believe in a Higgs-free Standard Model, which does not predict new...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Narendra Nath wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 00:22 GMT
Very nice response. You recollect i am no longer an active physicist and i never worked in Physics in your area of resaech when i was in tha acive career till 15 years back. i only reflect my own experience od doing Physics in my own days. Basics are the same but the topics change. Never mind that much an old foggy like me giving broad hints towards what i feel are the ways of going about research. Your sensitivity to my general comments has made me worry that i am unnecessarily, poking my nose in your nice attempts to harmonise Gravity and quantum mechanics. In fact, i have a hunch that the search for Higg's particle may just be invain. I am more for doing accurate and precise cosmological experiments specially for the early period of the universe, where new Physics may be found through unravelling the current mysteries of dark matter/energy and black holes ( without invocation of quantum gravity). All my best wishes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 08:19 GMT
Dear Narendra,

I am certain that your experience is of great value, and I appreciate your efforts to share it. During a lifetime, people learn many things, which they try to condensate in several general-use advices. When they offer to others these experiences, they know that they offer the meaning of life, as they experienced it, sometimes with big sacrifices. In this case, I did my best trying to value your advices, as you can see from my lengthy answers in which I tried to make sense of your words, and from asking you to provide examples. You did your best, and I did mine, and that's it.

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Nov. 4, 2009 @ 23:36 GMT
Dear Christi,

I'm glad that you think that there is something better than the Standard Model. I would hate to count on "ripples from the future" to support my belief in such.

Of course, as you say, "maybe we will find that there is no need for the Higgs boson. ... There are people who believe in a Higgs-free Standard Model..."

I have responded on my page to a comment from Narendra Nath. It is an extended comment and one that you may find interesting. Thank you for your comments and exchanges in this forum. I have enjoyed all of them immensely.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jayakar Johnson Joseph wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 01:28 GMT
Dear Cristinel Stoica,

In a Coherent-cyclic cluster-matter universe model; for a cluster-cluster its incoherent-cluster-matter with synchronized opposite rotation is its antimatter, whereas they have half spins in opposite directions, expressional in quantum mechanics by Braket notation, that have similarities with the wavefunction described by Paul Dirac and thereby Bell's quantum...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Nov. 7, 2009 @ 07:32 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I also enjoyed much our discussions, and I wish to thank you,

Cristi

Dear Jaykar,

You observed well that the unification I propose here is only between quantum theory and general relativity, being therefore compatible with models beyond the standard model, like the GUTs. I have chosen the standard model because it is standard, although it has the well-known limitations. Therefore, if a better model, based on gauge theory or not, is proposed, the mechanism of selecting from its quantum fields the spatially separable and continuous ones may make it compatible with general relativity as well. I am glad you find my work useful, thank you,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share



Ray Munroe wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 02:28 GMT
Dear Cristi,

I read your essay yesterday, and apologize once more for not reading it earlier. It is very technical and interesting. I did not check your equations.

Lawrence Crowell and I are also working on GUT's/ TOE's. Lawrence has a 26/27-dimensional TOE framework that looks promising, but needs a lot of work. I have a 12-dimensional geometrical TOE that may be an intermediate simplification of his ideas. Your model does not directly appeal to extra dimensions, but I suspect that your effective Lagrangian implies an unseen Hyperspace with new dimensions/ degrees of freedom.

You threw me off by calling it "Marblewood" because you did not discuss either marble or wooden quantities in detail, but your overall scheme is an effective GUT, and thus "Marble-wood". Peter Van Gaalen and I have had some conversations about marble and wooden quantities on his essay blog site. Using different arguments from mine, Peter also arrived at a multi-dimensional model. I don't know if the difference between marble and wooden is the difference between Abelian vs. non-Abelian Lie algebras, or if it is the difference between quantities with a fundamentally Spacetime origin vs. those with a Hyperspace origin.

Your Principle of Integral Interactions is a very key assumption. Fundamentally, this is the way that my 12-dimensional TOE works - we either have an interaction or not - it makes no sense to have a half-interaction. And although I agree that this is where Quantum Mechanics defies the Classical World and our classical Common Sense, we must be certain that this assumption is QM-compatible.

Equation 13 is an interesting effective GUT, but it seems 'forced' in the sense that if other dimensions exist, if other gauge, scalar or tensor forces exist, then we must enter new effective Lagrangians or curvatures by hand. Being a forced effective GUT, it cannot help predict which parts of the puzzle might be undiscovered.

Still, your approach is interesting, and you might want to read the three above essays.

Good luck with your research!

Ray Munroe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Cristinel Stoica wrote on Jan. 3, 2010 @ 09:42 GMT
Thank you, Ray.

I called it "marblewood" because I propose an interpretation for the "wooden" part of Einstein's equation. The "marble" part is the curvature part, it is spacetime geometry, which Einstein considered perfect. The "wood" part is the energy tensor, which is very different in quantum field theory, incompatible with the general relativity. Reinterpreting the quantum field theory in terms of classical gauge fields is the way I propose to unite the two.

There may be another sense in which "marble" and "wood" are tried to be unified, by seeing gravity on equal footing with the other forces. I think that gravity is sourced by the other forces, and they are not on equal footing. As an analogy, a vector is not on equal footing with its norm, yet they are unified. Spacetime and internal degrees of freedom should not mix. Therefore, I am not concerned with the curvature of the "internal dimensions". I consider the standard model forces as gauge forces, and the 4-dimensional spacetime is the basis manifold of the gauge bundle of the standard model. Of course, this bundle is itself a manifold, with extra dimensions, and with its own curvature, while the base spacetime is a factor manifold under the action of the gauge group. I consider this only a reformulation which adds nothing to the gauge theoretical approach, that's why I am not concerned with its curvature or how to curl its extra dimensions to make them unobservable.

As for the other approaches, which try to unify the standard model forces, many of them are compatible with mine. I used the standard model, but other GUTs which try to unify the SM forces can work as well, such as the ones based on SU(5), SO(10), Spin(10), etc. The main compatibility requirement for these GUTs with my approach is the non-mixing of the spacetime dimensions with the internal degrees of freedom.

Good luck with your research too!

Cristi Stoica

Bookmark and Share



Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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