Did God Divide by Zero? by Cristinel Stoica

Hello again Cristi,

Thank you for taking the time for a detailed answer. I'll be finishing your essay, and have a look at the QFT paper. This is very interesting stuff, and it could be foundational. I don't want to needlessly cast doubt, or to be a stick in the mud, but having taken up the issue of emergent dimensionality in my own paper, I cannot help but wonder what issues lurk below the surface of your theory - relating to this.

Like it or not - a point is 0-dimensional, and there are drawbacks to having a spacetime that is actually 0-d, as it has no extent in time. You are stopped cold if there is not a timeline left to continue. So it seems there is a disconnect. But I will read more before commenting further. Maybe my lack of understanding is the issue.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hello to both of you,

Christi sorry for the space.

Jonathan and Christi, the K theory seems relevant, the topology in 3D appears. The geometrical algebras are interesting when the finite groups are categorificated. Furthermore a real quantization canbe made in proportion with the rotations. The completude of bodies, natural and physical, of numbers(the p and the series), when we interpret the pure physicality, is convergent only when the axiom of dimensionality respectt the axiom of proportions due to rotations. The volumes also can be fractalized. But I believe strongly and I insist on the necessity to use the serie of uniqueness, universal. An entanglement is like a relativistic foto of our Universal 3D sphere.In fact the infinities and the finite groups are on a specific spherization of optimization. The dimensions are a fractalization of our 3D, there I can agree. But the superimposings or parallelizations or convergences or iterations must be rational! If not we have false projective systems where we loose our foundamental laws due to these spheres and their volumes and their rotations more the polarization of evolution between these fermions and these bosons. The strings in a pure sphericality can be relevant about the synchros and sortings between the bosonic spheres and the fermionic spheres. If the oscillations and its periodicity is an universal sphericality.So there are several relevances considering a pure fractalization of our 3d. The axiom of dimensionality is an interesting tool when the finite groups are analyzed with an universal uniqueness.

Regards

Hi Cristinel,

Very bold title; that's good!

Wings and prison: I could not have made a better argument. It is absolutely true that you have to take some chances, make a hypothesis, even if it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. Just be able to defend or duck when people challenge what you (someone) says. Even when people disagree with a hypothesis (or an idea) readers can see the topic from a new point of view; they can consider possibilities that they've never thought of. That's the point.

You argue that singularities do not necessarily destroy a theory. But do singularities actually exist? If you divide the mass of a black hole by R = 0, that gives you a singularity, right? However, if the radius goes to zero, then so does the mass-energy content inside of a spherical region of radius r (r goes to zero). Doesn't that save us from singularities?

'Nothing is always Something', in that there is no 'zero' to define a quantity. Zero quantity refers non-existence that is unrealistic scenario of dimensionality. Universe exists in eternity.

Dear Christinel,

At last some figures in our try to figure Nature. Although your essay is too "technical" for me I have some intuitive words to say.

From our "birth" to our "death" (no matter if we are particles or humans) we encompass our entanglement counterpart (although this counterpart exists in a different spacetime position). Singularities are doublets as well as everything in our world. Their "birth" (singularity) is entangled to their "death" (singularity). This does not contradict the "free will" because the later concerns the in between (birth-death) distance (period) and not the two (sub)events (birth or death).

Information is conserved (and multiplied) during the real expansion era of a universe and it evaporates (or "vanishes") during its virtual inhalation era. The horizon of any universe is where all the existed information is stored (and represented) and this horizon (or information content) is live all the way the universe exists. Hence, the singularity is not just a point in spacetime but an entity that includes its birth, its death and its event history.

Zero is another joker player in our physics' play. Sometimes it is used as emptiness (singularity) and sometimes as a physical value. These two meanings are completely different and their misuse confuse the matter. It seems that dividing by zero is like dividing by emptiness (which results to infinity, because from singularity could get anything as we do not care to declare the history of singularity (emptiness-zero)) in our mathematics.

I wish you good luck to the contest

Ioannis

PS. by the way I wonder whether the formulae in ass. 5 should be: x^2=1/(1+h^2), y^2=h^2/(1+h^2).

Hi Cristinel,

The way I learned about gravity, which is more Newtonian, is to assume a constant mass density rho. So the mass of the gravitating body is,

[math]M = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 \rho[/math]

Newtonian gravity is,

[math]F = \frac{GMm}{r^2}[/math]

Substituting in for M, you get,

[math]F = \frac{4 G\pi m \rho r }{3}[/math]

So when r goes to zero, the force of gravity goes to zero as well. In Newtonian physics it seems to work. Perhaps it's not this simple in general relativity.

Hi Christinel,

I guess if putting an upper limit on mass density was enough to save GR, someone would have already thought of that. I wish I had a better understanding of the R=0 singularity problem.

The one thing which has bothered me about this coordinate transformation is that it appears that you have removed the singularity at r = 0 by replacing it with a singularity at τ^2 = 2m. Maybe some further coordinate change can eliminate that.

Some time back I played around with the idea of letting 1 - 2m/r = e^u. then

ds^2 = e^udt^2 - e^{-u)dr^2 dΩ^2.

We now have to get dr from

dr = -2me^u/(1 - e^u)^2du.

Now the metric is

ds^2 = e^udt^2 -2m[e^u/(1 - e^u)^4]du^2 dΩ^2.

The singularity is at u = ∞, where the dt term blows up, and the horizon coordinate singularity at u = 0 is obvious in the du term. My rational was that the singularity had been removed "to infinity" in these coordinates and were then not a direct problem.

Cheers LC

Singularity of the major Universe transfers only the dimensionality of the previous Universe to the new one, increasing the new dimensionality (by 1). There is no information transfer between the previous Universe and the present or the next one.

I am afraid that with your method you are getting the virtual part of the Universe and not a pre- (or post-) Universe. In other words, you get the counter part of our (present) Universe. Imagine that the needle (or better the perpendicular plane, to the two lobes, in your fig. 2) as the pre-Universe. The problem of the transformation from a Universe to the next one have not been posed seriously by the physicists yet.

Wishes Ioannis

Hello Christi,,

It is relevant considering the proportions correlated with distances.So lattices between quantum entangled spheres. I must insist on the importance to have a pure serie of Uniquenss. This serie is universal.The complexity appears inside this 3D and with all its integrations and derivations. The infinities and the finites groups can be proportional with rotations of spheres. If the serie of uniqueness is not inserted for all quantum entanglements and all serie, universal.So it becomes more difficult to encircle the pure spherical dynamic of distribution. Inside a kind of universal cooling, indeed the lattices are correlated and purelly physical when the contact is perfect. If the serie begins with a main central sphere, so we see that the lattices can dissapear.It is intriguing considering the space, the mass and the light. In fact they are the same in a BEC of our mind in this absolute 0. The distances indeed are correlated, if you insert the rotations and volumes of this serie of uniqueness, so we have different gauges.1 for space, 1 for hv,1 for m.The space in my line of reasoning does not turn or a little perhaps.The m and hv , them turn in opposite sense.So we have a pure GR and SR which can be optimized with the curvatures of our evolutive space time.

the lattices between spheres are relevant when we extrapolate the fusion of 3 gauges. The increase of Entropy is of course axiomatized.

The distances are not really a problem when the differences are explained with rotating 3D spheres.Implying the specificity of gauges, universals. If the pure thermodynamis are inserted in closed evolutive spacetime.So we can simulate if and only if the serie of uniqueness is seen correctly and at all scales in 3D fractalization of course and fortunally furthermore.

A topological method must respect several foundamentals as our geometrical algebras......The serie of uniquenss is a finite group !!!

Regards

I am unsure why Hawking radiation is a problem. Physics is independent of the particular coordinate system we impose.

I was a bit glib with the language, comparing the benign singularity at det(g) = 0 as "removed," when this is just a "converse" of the malign singularity with g_{ij} -- > ∞.I originally did this with the idea of working with a black hole that sent the singularity off to infinity. In that way the analytic functions across the horizon of a Rindler wedge could be compared to a meremorphic function: analytic everywhere but at infinity.

There seems to be something odd going on here. Your equation 8 is singular at τ^2 = 2m. This appears to exchange the malign singularity at r = 0 with a singularity of some type on the horizon. As I communicated with you a few months ago this seems to have something to do with a dualism between quantum state interior to a black hole, or on the singularity, and the holographic states of a black hole as seen from the exterior.

Cheers LC

A quick corroboration of my worries about the worlds that singularity connects by this manipulation is the respond by L. B. Crowell :"... this seems to have something to do with a dualism between quantum state interior to a black hole, or on the singularity, and the holographic states of a black hole as seen from the exterior."

P.S. Virtual part: interior to a black hole ; Real part: exterior view of BH. (A look to my essays may be helpful).