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

Sreenath B N: on 3/29/11 at 6:42am UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Ray, Thanks for your response.If you need any (you definitely...

Ray Munroe: on 3/28/11 at 15:54pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, I apologize for my tardy response to the request you left...

Sreenath B N: on 3/22/11 at 9:04am UTC, wrote Dear Peter, Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your...

Peter Jackson: on 3/21/11 at 23:04pm UTC, wrote Sreenath I was waiting for a response to my post above before re-posting....

Sreenath B N: on 3/20/11 at 12:03pm UTC, wrote Dear Dan, Thanks for your response.Regarding suggesting any experiments or...

Dan T Benedict: on 3/16/11 at 18:04pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, Thank you for clarifying the small BH issue. I new that you...

Sreenath B N: on 3/16/11 at 9:40am UTC, wrote Dear Dan, Thanks for your positive response.The moment I saw your essay...

Dan T Benedict: on 3/15/11 at 23:44pm UTC, wrote Dear Sreenath, I have just read your essay and the corresponding paper on...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "There are two facts that have been established. First, the universe 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...

Jason Wolfe: "Hi Steve, It sounds like we have similar interpretations of quantum..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes indeed, a wavefunction represents a superposition of locations as well..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Science is motivated to sever the connection with Deity. They use fluff,..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""But what do scientists hope quantum computers will be good for,..." in What Will Quantum...

Zeeya Merali: "Over the past couple of months there’s been renewed interest, and quite..." in What Will Quantum...

Jason Wolfe: "If I could write an unconventional model of reality, it would come with a..." in Alternative Models of...


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 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay Contest (2010-2011) [back]
TOPIC: The Advaitha ( Non-Dualism ) Of Digital & Analog Nature Of Reality by Sreenath B N [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Sreenath B N wrote on Feb. 15, 2011 @ 16:29 GMT
Essay Abstract

Abstract :- Reconciling Digital nature of Reality with its Analog nature is deeply related to the problem of " Quantum-Gravity ". If the digital and analog nature of Reality are successfully explained on the basis of a ' common-concept',then the problem of Quantum-Gravity is solved.How this is done is the theme of this article. Digital & Analog Nature of Reality are intrisically related to the structure of Space and Time.

Author Bio

Biography: Independent researcher;interested in the fundamentals and philosophy of physics.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan Lowey wrote on Feb. 16, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Hi Sreenath, I liked the approach of your essay very much. Have you ever considered the Archimedes screw as a model for the graviton btw?? All the best, Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Feb. 17, 2011 @ 08:43 GMT
Dear Alan,

Archimedes spiral or screw wont represent the QG path but conical spiral or screw will represent it. By the way, there are no gravitons;you will find this on page 32,last para of my article on QG which you can find in my web-site I have mentioned.

Thanks for the comments and best wishes.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share



Member Tejinder Pal Singh wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for your remarks on my essay. I have tried to read your essay and understand parts of it. Your idea of a quantized acceleration is interesting, but I do not yet see how it makes mathematical contact with existing theory, so as to become a viable extension of standard physics. I hope you will agree that it will be nice if your idea can be mathematically related [via dynamical laws] to the existing theories of QM and GR.

Best wishes,

Tejinder

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 1, 2011 @ 10:23 GMT
Dear Dr.TP Singh,

Thanks for your reply and query.I have identified QG field to 'exponentially varying accelerated field' in which the gravity/acceleration varies exponentially.So it is possible for us to derive GR from QG but not vice-versa.Regarding how I have done this can be seen in my article on QG,which you find in my web-site I have mentioned in my essay("http://www.sreenath.webs.com" and click on abstract).The path described in QG field is Logarithmic (Equiangular) spiral path on a plane and conical spiral path in three dimentions.So QG field is a 'Torsion" field.When torsion vanishes QG field becomes uniform accelerated field i.e.,GR.

I have different views on QM which you see in my above article.In it,I have tried to connect the Schrodinger equation to 'how a particle gains energy in the QG field'.If you want me to send my article by e-mail to you,please,inform me and your mathematical frame work to my work I welcome most.

Best regards

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


sridattadev wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:14 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

If we try to understand the universe going forward in time as opposed to current approach of theoritical physics of going backward in time to understand the utimate truth, truth becomes apparent on how the universe is created. If the universe is the observed and we are the observers, when one (singularity) gives birth, one has created an observer and the observed (duality), and yet the creator remains the whole (singularity). And the cycle repeats until the created becomes the creator. Universe is eternally eventful, space and time are just coordinates of these events. There is no space unless one chooses to measure and there is no time until one chooses to count. For the one fully realized (singularity or advaitha) each and every event is the first and the last. Spirituality is nothing but the science which reminds us of this truth of joy or love and this has been expressed by so many of our fore fathers and all religions of the world.

I have read your article on QG and acceleration and like your understanding and interpretation. But the question remains, what is it that is accelerating in this universe? The only way to answer that question is to ask another fundamental question, Who am I? I or Singularity gravitates everything. I am virtual reality or duality, I (conscience) in all of us is the sinularity or absolute truth.

You can see the article, Theory of everything that I have submitted in this contest if you are interested and all the best in your pursuit of the truth.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 10:24 GMT
Dear sridattadev,

Thanks for your openion on my article.Iam amazed by your indepth knowledge of Vedantha.Science,infact,moves from Effect to Cause and not vice-versa because it observes only effect and then based on its wisdom of effect it tries to interpret the cause.Then this cause itself becomes the effect and the process continues till the Last or Ultimate Cause is reached.Whether this is reachable or not is another matter but in that endeavour lies the spirit of science and,I strongly believe,spirituality of man and his wisdom.

Today itself Iam going to read your article.Till then good bye.

I,sincerely,wish you too success in your pursuit of wisdom.

Thanks

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share



Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 4, 2011 @ 20:57 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Your paper is an interesting approach towards quantum gravity. Personally, I think that quantum gravity is more complex than your model, but this is a good start. I see some overlapping commonalities in our ideas.

You said "Now if the acceleration (or gravity) varies,let us say exponentially as in the case of EM field (bremsstrahlung) as well as in the QG field, test-masses of classical size still describe continuous path although in QG field they describe logarithmic (or equiangular) spiral path on a plane or conical spiral path in three dimensions as they are subjected to 'Torsion'."

I think that the Golden Ratio helps explain the problem of infinity by introducing self-similar scales. One special logarithmic spiral is the Golden Spiral based on the Golden ratio.

You also proposed Č/C ≈ 10-21, where Č is a lower speed for our scale. This sounds like my expectations for scales - where a finite observable Universe requires all numbers to be truncated at the high and low ends of the spectrum. And your 10^-21 is the inverse-square-root of Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

I think that the Black Hole (near) "singularity" is truncated by a discrete lattice of spacetime itself (call it quantum gravity?). The most likely geometry for the core of a static Black Hole is a Carbon-60 Buckyball. A rotating Black Hole would produce enough torsion that a pair of nested Buckyballs may morph into their homotopic cousin, a lattice-like near-torus. This lattice-like behavior would only exist in the region of quantum gravity, and must (somehow?) transition to the continuous expectations of General Relativity as we move radially outward from the (near) "singularity".

Good Luck in the Essay Contest!

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 16:04 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your openion on my article.Since the path described in the QG field is logarithmic (or equiangular)spiral path as it is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field.So your openion that it is related to Golden ratio is justified.Iam also surprised to learn that the ratio of Č/C ˜ 10-21 is related to Dirac's Large Number 10^41.

In the limited space available in the essay contest,I couldn't,present my complete views on QG field and Black-Holes (BH).So for this,please,go to my web-site which I have mentioned in my essay (http://www.sreenath.webs.com).

Regarding BH,a BH can never be a static object for it is a pure state of vacuum surrounded by densest matter whose mass is related to the radius of BH.That is why matter cannot be crushed to singularity as to be expected from GR,because it is the force of QG which dominates inside the BH and GR just stops when matter attains its gravitational radius.The metric of GR breaksdown and gravitation is takenover by the brute force of QG.The force of QG is 'diabolically' active and never allows the BH to remain static but fluctuate periodically.There is still more to it but for now it is enough.

Since QG force is an exponentially varying accelerated (or gravity) field which implies torsion and when torsion vanishes the field becomes uniformly accelerated field (i.e.,gravitation as described by GR), away from the BH.

Wishing you too good luck in the essay contest .

cheers

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Mar. 5, 2011 @ 19:13 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I like your torsion quantum gravity idea. It reminds me of Edwin Eugene Klingman's "C" GEM-like field taken to the extreme example of a Black Hole singularity.

A fullere-like near-torus (the homotopic cousin to a pair of nested buckyballs - I still need to cut up a couple of soccer balls so that I can envision this near-toroidal lattice) of spacetime lattice might behave as the gravitational equivalent of a superconductor and repeal Gravitational fields. After all, Carbon Buckyballs have electrical superconductor properties and can repel Electric fields.

In addition, stars usually have a rotational spin. As they collapse into Black Holes, conservation of Angular Momentum should cause the Black Hole to spin faster as its effective radius decreases.

Perhaps the combination of spin/ torsion, quantum gravity, and/or gravitational-superconductor effects prevent the Black Hole from fully collapsing into the singularity point.

Earlier, I was worrying about the transition from a quantum lattice of spacetime to a continuously differentiable spacetime. The answer could be as simple as qubits of strings (Philip Gibbs and Lawrence Crowell's essays are recommended reading) - where the near-singularity end of the string behaves like a quantum lattice point, and the strings extend outwards (a logarithmic spiral is an effective way to overcome these scale differences) through the Event Horizon, and into our relatively flat realm of spacetime.

I have enjoyed bouncing ideas off of other contestants. Perhaps we can collectively build ideas that may help solve old problems. As an individual, I run out of ideas in my own little world.

Have Fun!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 16:41 GMT
Dear Ray Munroe,

Thanks for your views and I stress you to, please,go thro' my web-site that I have mentioned in my essay and there you find complete answer for your problems on QG.In it I have given the basic field equation of the QG field in tensor form.In it I have also said how Immirzi-parameter is related to QG field.

Your idea of collective collaboration is inspiring.

cheers

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba wrote on Mar. 6, 2011 @ 01:33 GMT
Dear Sir,

We had gone through your analytical descriptions.

How do you define space, time, space-time and the ‘gaps’ or ‘discontinuities’ in the space and time? Both space and time are related to sequence – the order of arrangement. The interval between objects is space and the interval between events is time. We measure these intervals with a standard unit that is easily...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Mar. 9, 2011 @ 16:22 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I liked your originality in desribing various issues in physics.But as far as I know,both theories of Relativity are tested in various experiments to precision.So I dont want to comment on your views on them.

In fourth para from bottom,you are saying that 'since other particles are subject to different forces in the local field, they move differently'.Is the force you are reffering to gravitation? Here I want to make my stand clear.In gravitational field,particles (quantum) of different masses are subjected to different forces but their 'acceleration' is the same.So according to the second law of QG,which I have stated,all particles will have the same 'energy' (kinetic) which implies that their velocities vary according to their masses.Although,this is not the case with macroscopic test masses.It is this difference in the behaviour of quantum particles and test masses in uniform accelerated field which I have repeatedly stressed in my essay.

In the penultimate para,you have identified 'Dual nature of velocity'with acceleration and deceleration.I dont know on what basis you done so.Nor do I understand how do you identify velocity with Non-Duality.

In the final para,the spirit in which I have used the word 'Advaitha' is misunderstood by you.According to Advaitha,'Brahman'is the ultimate reality and like-wise QG field is the ultimate reality in the physical universe.

Thanks for your comments on my essay and I will go thro' your essay soon and express my views on it.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba replied on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 08:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

Truth has no variants and palatable benevolence is a rarity. Blind acceptance of something in the face of apparent contradictions is nothing but superstitions. Running away from something when faced with a challenge is cowardice. Hence kindly do not discredit yourself by refusing to face the truth. This is harming the cause of science. There are many manipulated experiments to...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Guilford Robinson wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 19:07 GMT
dear Sreenaath

I believe that QG will be eventually made compatible with GR! I believe the direction of approach is to prove that GR is compatible with a structural derivation of the quantum conception of a particle. Just as Einstein's equations had to agree with Newton's at low velocities, then QG and GR will reduce to each other. They are simply different aspects or different ways our minds are perceiving the same reality. Please see my article.

Guilford Robinson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 06:44 GMT
Dear Guilford Robinson,

It is true that Einstein's equations agree with Newton's at low velocities but it is not true that QG and GR will reduce to each other.Because QG field is the basic field from which you can derive the GR (gravitational field) but not QG from GR.That is,you can reduce QG to GR but not the opposite.How this is done,you will find it in my article in the web-link that I have mentioned in my essay.In the QG field both QM and GR(in its distorted form) are combined.GR in its distorted form because in the QG field gravity varies exponentially;where as gravity (acceleration)remains uniform in GR.Thus GR is distorted in QG.So QG is the reality from which GR can be deduced.

Today itself I will go thro' your article.

Good luck and best regards.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 11, 2011 @ 19:55 GMT
Sreenath

I was impressed by your essay and ideas. Ray suggested I read your essay as he saw consistencies with what you are doing. There are, though much was beyond me as I am not a physicist. Ours are very different. In mine I try to explain a discovery. It is a logical solution from conceptual thought of dynamic variables. One in five have seen the solution. I hope you will read it and try.

I have no mathematical proof as I discovered it by initially avoiding the abstractive dangers of maths in disconnecting with reality.

In it is you may find previously undiscovered black hole. A photograph, which, when you know what to look for, will show a toroid by curved light. Do tell me if you find it ok, or ask. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

There is also a link to a logical final extension and more black holes, posted in the strings.

Very best wishes and good luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
Dear Peter Jackson,

I went thro' your intriguing essay often and tried to see how you have succeeded in facing the requirements of the essay contest.Although you have tried from an odd angle,finally you have not come to any conclusion.

In the photograph,I saw high speed gas gushing away from the blast (or explosion?) place and it could be as a result of shock wave emanating from collision between two white-dwarfs or plsma emitted form a black-hole or a pulsar or even a white-dwarf.The shape of the gas curve emitted in all such cases would be almost the same.

If you are too good at maths,I will give ideas on how to solve problems related to black-holes.

Best regards and good luck in the competition.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Halpern wrote on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 04:06 GMT
Dear Sreeneth B N,

I found your use and application of the notion of Advaitha fascinating. It is interesting to think about the concept of non-duality as applied to quantum gravity. Very though-provoking essay!

Best wishes,

Paul

Paul Halpern, The Discreet Charm of the Discrete

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Halpern replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 04:09 GMT
Sorry for misspelling your name - I had meant to write 'Sreenath'

Best regards,

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 12, 2011 @ 07:17 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,

Thanks for your opinion.When I saw the heading of the essay contest 'Is it possible to reconcile digital and analog nature of reality' the idea of connecting it to Advaitha dawned on me.Because Advaitha in a literal sense means Non-dualism.If it is possible for us to reconcile both forms of reality,then it must be done only on the concept of Non-dualism (that is Advaitha).Combining digital with analog, in physics means combining QM with GR,leads to QG which is non-dual to both.

Today itself I will go thro' your article and express my opinion.

Good luck and best regards.

Sreenath B N.e

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 13, 2011 @ 04:38 GMT
Dear Paul Halpern,

In your intriguing essay,you have argued for the existence of a fundamental particle called,Holon.It is really good if such a particle exists as all of our knowledge of elementary particles can based on it.But you have not mentioned holon's mass and wave-length.I hope you will soon do it as it gives limits to our understanding of the physics.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath B N.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 14, 2011 @ 19:13 GMT
Sreenath

Thank you for your pertinent response above on my string, In answer I posted the note below. In checking I also note I hadn't rated your essay yet, and will do so now reflecting my very favourable comments above. I hope you will do the same by the deadline if you haven't as I'm just outside the ones to be for journal attention, which is important for the model.

Thank you again and very best wishes.

Peter

RESPONSE (Edited)

You noted I gave no 'conclusion'. Hmmm. Perhaps my English understatement Sreenath, I explain what may be a paradigm shifting discovery, (which I hope you haven't missed!) which gives two distinct solutions;

1) The 'continuous' condensate must become discrete (ions) to implement change, and

2) Space itself is divided into discrete 'blocks' or perhaps 'causal sets' of volume surrounding condensed matter and limited by diffractive boundaries.

So without either one, the other could not exist. So not only is nature both, but I describe how and why, which unveils the problem and derives SR via a quantum mechanism. Did you read the logical analysis in the post above?

You need to be able to manipulate multiple dynamic spaces and diffracting waves in your mind to make it intuitive, which it quickly then becomes. It is difficult! If it was easy it would have been seen 100 years ago. And then thinking through the implications... they are very substantial!

I hope you have another go.

Or once you are ready, look at the quite stunning logical conclusions in the short preprint here; http://vixra.org/abs/1102.0016

The Photograph? - The previous analysis is (I believe) incomplete. It is a Quasar, with just the 'approaching' jet visible as the receding jet is red shifted to radio frequencies (but both jet heads are visible. A Quasar is a toroid black hole (see the other paper for a photo of another) with the jets perpendicular to the 'disk' (as our own smbh). The gravity is so intense there is much lensing or 'microlensing'. If you look around the source of the jet you will see lensed (enlarged and curved) light from stars behind, outlining the toroid curvature. It is rather large! M87's jets are many millions of light years long.

I feel we must better use observation and empirical evidence to support theory wherever we can.

Very best of luck.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Dan T Benedict wrote on Mar. 15, 2011 @ 23:44 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I have just read your essay and the corresponding paper on your website. Unfortunately, the essay length restrictions has limited the information the you where able to convey. The paper on your website, IHMO, seems rigorous enough to be sent to an international review journal to get feedback from an expert. The fact we have reached similar conclusions regarding galaxy growth from BHs (even though we reached this conclusion from totally different approaches) gives me great hope that both your theory of QG and my model of the cosmos are more than coincidence. I believe your theory has great promise and admire your technical skill. I would recommend correcting the few grammar and spelling mistakes as well as creating an inclusive reference page. The only concern regarding the content of your paper is your conclusion regarding small BHs, that seems to contradict the conclusions of Hawking. He predicts that smaller BHs should radiate more intensely than larger BHs.

I don't know if you have had a chance to read Christian Corda's essay but he is Editor in Chief of two different peer review journals. Please see his correspondence with me on his forum for the information if you are interested in submitting your paper. I think you should, since your work seems very important. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, as I've tried to read a many essays as possible, but have not been able to read them all.

Wishing you the best,

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 09:40 GMT
Dear Dan,

Thanks for your positive response.The moment I saw your essay last night I called on you because of intimate relationship between our ideas.If you base your views on the basis of QG field,it would be enthralling.

Regarding why I cannot admit BHs of smaller size than,R= 10^5 cm is because of the intrinsic relationship between micro (quantum) and macro (classical) world according to the relation r/R = 2πGβ/c2 .If the radius of BH is 10^2 cm,then the value of 'r'(Interaction-range) becomes 10^-33 cm,that is the Planck's length.That is why BHs of size smaller than 10^2 cm cannot be admitted (but I commit myself to 10^5 cm).Similarly you cannot go on increasing the gravitational radius above 10^30 cm (in my article I have restricted it to 10^30 cm),because then the value of Interaction-range 'r' correspondingly increases.For example,if R= 10^30 cm then 'r'=10^-5 cm; if R= 10^33 cm then 'r' = 10^-2 cm.Now you see the reason.If this conclusion contradicts (it will) Hawking's idea of 'Baby-BHs',it is natural.It is because his theory does n't limit the size of BHs and that is the flaw of all existing theories on BHs.

Thanks for your suggestions on my web-article.On your suggestion, I would like to contact "Corda'.I would be glad if you too participate in this.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards and good luck.

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Dan T Benedict replied on Mar. 16, 2011 @ 18:04 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

Thank you for clarifying the small BH issue. I new that you had a reason within your theory, but I meant that since Hawking is seen as the authority, that this might be an issue for a journal. Since your theory seems to be consistent, can you suggest any experiments or observations that would be able to support it if they were conducted? This is another important step to getting acceptance from the mainstream physics community. Since your theory doesn't admit gravity waves (I have had doubts about them, myself), it may be difficult to get any experiment support, due to scale at which QG acts. Nevertheless, I'm glad you have considered my suggestion.

I had always suspected that there must be some connection between my model and the quantum world, but had never made any connections of my own. You can imagine my surprise, when I read your paper. All of my ideas came from contemplation of the nature of time and from the limited knowledge that I have on GR.

I plan to reread your paper and will assist you however I am able.

Sincerely,

Dan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 20, 2011 @ 12:03 GMT
Dear Dan,

Thanks for your response.Regarding suggesting any experiments or observations that would be able to support my theory,I want to make the following clarification.

There are two ways which allow you to verify my theory.One in the classical world by observing phenomena going on in BHs by observing their dynamics.A BH,according to me,is a Hole of 'perfect vacuum' and contains 'no' matter inside it but the mass surrounding this Hole determines its 'radius',according to the well known equation R = 2GM/C^2. This Hole is characterised by Temparature and Pressure inside it.It is the presence of this Hole (which we call BH) prevents matter from falling into Singularity, thro' the force of QG.It is the violent interaction between the crushing matter and the resistance offered by the BH results in the emission of Jets by the BH with enormous power.The jet of mass gains energy of the order of 10^14 times the initial energy with which it enters the BH at its 'event-horizon'.This is nothing but the ratio of QG energy to self (or free) energy available to particles as a result of intense gravitational interaction taking place at the 'event-horizon'.

The second way of verification is much easier. Remember that classical world is related to the micro (quantum) world by the relation r/R =2πGβ/c2 .According to this relation,the role played by QG can be seen 'directly' in explaining the energy possessed by micro-particles in the quantum-world thro' the 'Interaction-Table' (IT).To know this,please,go thro' IT and make yourself thorough with it.IT is also 'Chart of Elementary Particles' with their 'Decay-Times'.

More on this after your response.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Mar. 21, 2011 @ 23:04 GMT
Sreenath

I was waiting for a response to my post above before re-posting. I wasn't overly impressed you'd missed the black hole picked out by lensing in the HH34 photo. But Dan mentioned his support for you, (not by name but I guessed) and I respect Dan, so I looked and considered more closely and he's right. Your essay was much underrated on content. I'd like to accept your offer re input on black holes, but also discuss a few more points;

Quantised acceleration. I missed the link before, and I think you have too. Refraction (/diffraction) DOES form a bridge between classical SR/GR and QM. Indeed this is at the heart of my essay. The quantization of acceleration is the basic quanta of condensed matter, the ion, this not only implements SR by slowing light scattered from a co-moving particle to the 'c' of the ion, but the diffraction IS curved space time (in the plasma medium) so the ions ARE dark matter, and the mass of the ions gives Equivalence - inertial mass = gravitational mass. The greater the difference between in speed between scattered particles the more ions condense, so the higher the inertial mass! The references in my paper provide all the basic empirical evidence required to support the hypothesis. The discrete field model is mostly entirely equivalent to your own, just viewed from different cerebral hemispheres. It essentially explains CSL conceptually without needing the LT, simplifying all physics.

Black holes. > The evidence is now quite overwhelming that they are toroid. (atomic tokamak), and I deal with conical spirals at length empirically in the paper I posted above. I believe your radius viewpoint should cope with this but it will need further thought. They rotate on the macro as well as sectional axis (em field).

I mentioned to Dan I've been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication. I'd definitely like to at least mention your work, and if you'd like to contribute all the better, but I would like to hear your considered views on the above.

Best wishes.

Peter

PS. Dan; > Any views also very welcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 22, 2011 @ 09:04 GMT
Dear Peter,

Congrats for making it to the top ten! This is because of your relentless effort and innovative essay.I saw in your essay your visiualization of reality,as you said,from different cerebral hemispheres.It is good that you have tried to connect it to my theme of the essay and I gladly welcome it.Iam extremely sorry for not expressing my congrats before you posted your response to me.

Iam delighted to know how you have connected the idea of 'quantization of acceleration' to condensed matter physics thro' your imaginative article.

Regarding BHs,their existence for me was presumptuous.For this,please, go to my web-site "http://www.sreenath.webs.com".

Iam glad to hear that you have been invited to write/edit a GUT chapter in an EBook publication.I want to participate in this if you are willing by contributing an article.

Thanking you.

Sincerely

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Ray Munroe wrote on Mar. 28, 2011 @ 15:54 GMT
Dear Sreenath,

I apologize for my tardy response to the request you left on my site. I started reading your 71 page paper. I noticed similarities with your essay. There are parts of your ideas that I like, and parts that bother me. I need to read more of your paper and try to give some feedback.

Good Luck!

Dr. Cosmic Ray

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Sreenath B N replied on Mar. 29, 2011 @ 06:42 GMT
Dear Dr. Ray,

Thanks for your response.If you need any (you definitely need) clarification,please, inform me.Iam obliged to respond.The paper is surely long, for it has got to be, as in it I have tried to bridge the gap between GR and QM on entirely new concepts and this takes a little bit of time to assimilate them.Merging GR and QM, which leads to the theory of QG, also means formulating a TOE. The theme of the paper is,' by distorting GR how it is made to comply with all the forces of the quantum world'. QM, in the paper, is understood on entirely different grounds as it is to comply with the dictates of QG but is in complete agreement with its current interpretation.So this is an additional 'angle' from which you view QM.

Looking forward to hear more discussion on this.

Regards

Sreenath.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

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