Here is the opinion of Constantinos Ragazas at his page http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1406:

Sergey,

Thanks for pointing this out. And I thought it was my controversial topic! The math makes sense. And so does your critic of fqxi rules for selecting the final 35. As I already mentioned to Branden Foster, the number of finalists should be a percentage of the total number of essays submitted. And not a fixed number And there should probably be some broad categories for selecting a greater variety of topics, professional and non-professional, in the final group. Too much emphasis currently is given by the community to the more 'standard theories' with more extreme and exotic extensions of these. But this only gets us deeper in the rabbit's hole of unreality we are in. Raising such questions as my essay and others do, the 'professional physicists' of course would adversely react to what they just don't want to think.

I have no illusions about winning a prize! But just wanted to draw greater attention to the many results and ideas in my papers. Which aim to 'make sense' of physics. `Shut up and calculate` is not acceptable to me. Nor it should be to any other intellectually honest thinker.

Best,

Constantinos

Dear Sergey,

A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.

If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.

So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.

As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.

Anton

  • [deleted]

  • Post #96

Dear Sergey,

Thanks for your response and references. A lingering curiosity I have with every theory - what in your theory determines "being in the Universe"? And don't you agree this is a fundamental question that every theory must answer? As this determines 'physical existence'. As compared to 'mathematical existence' which never needs to be 'real'.

Constantinos

Dear Constantinos,

For any object its being in the Universe and physical existence is the next: 1). The object was born in the Universe (which as a system is so infinite as it necessary to include all forms and entities which were the base for formation of the object in question). The physical object can not exist without of its previous evolution and development. 2). Any physical object (including wane quanta) consists of matter in the form of substance particles which belong to low levels of matter in comparison with the level of matter of the object. For example a galaxy consists of stars, their planets, moons, asteroids, dust, gas, particles and so on. 3). All the known forces of Universe influence any physical object through its compound particles. 4). We know two long-range fundamental forces in the Universe - gravitational and electromagnetic. These main forces form any object and stationary fields near the objects are observable. The quanta of these forces are waves in fluxes of gravitons. These waves may have rotational structure and carry rotational momentum, energy and linear momentum, for electromagnetic waves they have name photons. As the gravitons we suppose: the quanta of neutrino; photons; relativistic particles similar by their properties to cosmic rays having electric charge. All the gravitons for the strong gravitation and usual gravitation appeared at low levels of matter. When stars of visible universe will transform in neutron star and white dwarfs the radiation of the stars will the base for new gravitons which will influence such great objects which are much more bigger then the metagalaxies. 5). We suppose that strong interaction may be explained with the help of strong gravitation and Gravitational torsion field in gravitational model of strong interaction. And the weak interaction is simply transformation of substance inside of objects under action of fundamental fields, fluxes of the fields or result of collision with other objects.6). The objects are open systems; they interact with fundamental fields and other objects. The flux of negentropy comes to the objects from the low level of matter by means of fluxes of gravitons. At the same time entropy have rise in the processes of collision of objects with other matter objects. 7). We found the reason of redshift in existence of nuons, which have mass about mass of proton and are similar by their properties to white dwarfs: Cosmic Red Shift, Microwave Background, and New Particles. And the other reason is possible - the mutual interaction of wave quanta and dissipation of their energy. In modern cosmology we find unphysical `explanation` of redshift through space expansion. But space is not a physical object and its expansion may help only calculate the process but cannot explain it. The same situation is in general relativity which can not explain the reason of curving of spacetime near objects. And the same we find in quantum chromodynamics which tries fit experiments with the help of about 20 unexplained parameters!??? It is not a physics it is mathematical work only. There are not real substantial models of objects; instead of it we see only mathematical theories based on ideas of symmetry of properties of particles; and based on supposed forces from interaction of particles with virtual the same particles??? (how it is possible to explain interaction of two protons through virtual pions which must appear between these protons?).

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Janko,

Here are answers to your questions:

1.< You included strong gravitational constant which rejects some benefits given by general relativity. They are, the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc.> The general relativity may be changed by Covariant theory of gravitation . In view of it the principle of equivalence, background free spacetime etc. are not more benefits given by general relativity.

2. < You do not enough include quantum field theory and quantum mechanics, which are base of our world.> The approach of quantum field theory and quantum mechanics is very limited to waves form of calculation in physics and is probabilistic. It is not a common physical approach.

3. < Where do you obtain 4.3c?> From the similarity relation for speeds, see my essay. The characteristic speed of the proton substance is c and its rest (absolute value of total) energy is [math] M_p c^2 [/math] where Mp is mass of the proton. For the neutron star we have characteristic speed of substance [math]C_s = 6.7 \cdot 10^7 m/s[/math] and absolute value of its total energy is [math] M_s C_s^2 [/math] where Ms is mass of the star. From here the ratio is c = 4.3 Cs. Accordingly, the speed 4.3c is the characteristic speed for the substance inside of the particles which are inside of proton.

4. < I think that idea of strong gravitational constant is to reject contradictions against QM, which arise when black holes are smaller than Plank's mass. Am I correct?> From the theory it follows that Planck mass is equal to product of proton mass and similarity coefficient in size between star and atomic levels of matter. So the Planck mass is not a mass of a real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size. In view of it strong gravitation do not depend on quantum mechanics and its Planck mass.

Sergey Fedosin

  • [deleted]

  • Post #100

As for why you broadcasted "your" concerns on community scoring on "my" essays posting I do not know, however, if this action was to draw attention to your essay .... here you go...

You discuss nesting, but, what you do not say is that it is "information" that is nested (information is all you will ever measure), and, I had given a classical 4D description of information in last years essay (an experiment you can do for yourself should you be more curious using time to comprehend real information rather then warning others of "unduly" scoring methods). Anyway, you will see that you do not require a 5th dimention to "scale" this information, you need a ruler and a clock to measure the radially dependent 4D size of the information space "relative" to another - a ratio of measures.

Also, you say:

"Another objection to the Big Bang model is the inability of appearing in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter of singularities and black holes as objects, absorbing any substance and not giving anything out [3], [8], [9]."

This in itself appears very confusing. Apparently you have not heard who "won the war" implying that black holes DO emit radiation and particles, and, "do not" swallow information that is forever lost.

You speak of many different mass types, fields, etc., which adds a bunch of smoking mirrors to hide information and make things that were meant to be simple look rather complicated and seperate.

On a good note, I do see the benefits in scaling, however, you seperate out different scales and site relative "importances" for each and site where life occupies ... on your 6th scale. All the scales are alive and each scale comes with different time constants ..... it is all about scaled life that shares duel information....

Regards,

Anthony DiCarlo

    Dear Anthony,

    thanks for your opinion. I do not believe in existence of virtual particles-antiparticles and in evaporation of black holes. Please take any proton which is not a black hole and have stable mass.

    Sergey Fedosin

    • [deleted]

    • Post #102

    Dear Sergey Fedosin,

    Thank you for taking the trouble to post your written concern about the scoring system being used to rate my essay in this august competition. I believe that one real Universe can only be existing in one real curved dimension located perpetually in one real here for the duration of one real now, once. In my real Universe there is only one real 1 of anything once. The Foundational Questions Institute saw fit to publish my essay uncut once. No realistic system of essay selection could be fairer than that.

    Anton W.M. Biermans replied on Oct. 5, 2012 @ 04:01 GMT

    Dear Sergey,

    A Self-Creating Universe (SCU) doesn't exist as a whole, as 'seen' from without, so to say, so we cannot even ask, from the outside, whether it has a border.

    According to the uncertainty principle, a particle of an infinitesimal energy has an infinite lifetime: as its position in space and hence in time is completely indefinite as long as its energy is infinitesimal, we can say that it always has existed and always will exist, though as the effects of its existence then are infinitesimal, we can as well say that it doesn't really exist. If in a SCU the mass of particles is as much the product as the source of the force between them so is a relative quantity, varying depending on their distance and motion, and they evolve in a trial-and-error process to an ever-increasing energy (which they do by contracting), but start out with an infinitesimal energy, then they have no sharp birth date so to speak, so their universe, their interaction horizon has no sharp border either.

    If the mass of the objects within its universe also depends on the mass of the observing particle, the force it feels from and exerts upon such objects, then according to the particle, its universe starts to exist as it starts to exist itself, that is, as it starts to interact.

    So whereas in a Big Bang Universe all particles have been created at the same time, in a SCU particles keep creating each other everywhere, always, so while a BBU has a beginning as a whole and hence a border, a SCU, as seen from within, has no border which is the same for all observers: a SCU looks, is different to different observers.

    As any particle is at the center of its own interaction horizon, its own universe, two particles don't live in the exact same universe unless they are ate the exact same spacetime point: the farther they are apart, the less their universes overlap, the less what happens within the interaction horizon (which obviously has no sharp border) of one particle is related to what happens within the universe of the other.

    Anton

      Dear Anton,

      We can not use uncertainty principle for a particle of an infinitesimal energy so it has not an infinite lifetime as you think. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle connects Planck constant as a measure of action, and change of energy with the time of change of the energy. At the level of star is its Planck constant, see

      "> Similarity of matter levels ](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Similarity_of_matter_levels#The_similarity_of_forms_and_energies_of_the_phenomena

      ), then there the uncertainty principle take place too. At every basic level of matter there is its own Planck constant. So for very small particles with an infinitesimal energy we have not an infinite lifetime. I am sure the Big Bang is a myth, so I do not agree that particles keep creating each other everywhere in the Big Bang.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Write a Reply...