Hey Yuri,
You started explaining your theory on my page, but you didn't finish. It would be most helpful if you used that opportunity to help everyone see your point of view clearly by writing a guide, rather than just use it to spam everyone with random numbers.
- Shawn
Halayka
Could you please read again my essay with all my comments?
For best understanding also please read my last contest essay.
All the best.
Hello Yuri. English I do not know and have not read your essay. Tried to understand the annotations and comments. Your suggestions can be implemented by writing metaphysical books. Only one space. Time is of simultaneity. Measure the space required. Content can be measured. All types of energy comes from the heat and all kinds of material - from the information. Gravity does not have neither heat nor the information (structure). She comes to the origin of the heat. Complete thermodynamic formula M.Plank in MDM, he found the quantum of action, analyze not yet started. Since metaphysics can find in my essay.
Information-Energy Quantum Balance by Vasily Kletshkin
14 posts • created by Vasily Kletshkin • Aug. 30, 2012 @ 12:08 GMT
Василий
Не верю,что без знания английского можно выступить с опровержением каких-либо постулатов физики.
Извините....
Dear Yuri,
I want add information about Planck units according to the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my Essay). About the meaning of the Planck length. It is close to radius of particles (praons) which relate to nucleon in the same way as nucleons relate to neutron star. It is supposed that in neutron as much praons as neutrons in the neutron star. Now about Planck mass. 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 real particle, since there is should be similarity coefficient in mass, not similarity coefficient in size.
For better clarification my approach
I sending to you Frank Wilczek's 3 keen articles
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits388.pdf
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits393.pdf
http://ctpweb.lns.mit.edu/physics_today/phystoday/Abs_limits400.pdf
Confirmation of lower limit velocity of light
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.3765.pdf
Freeman Dyson interesting point of view.
The New York Review of Books Volume 51, Number 8, 2004
"The question that I am asking is whether there is any conceivable way in which we could detect the existence of individual gravitons. It is easy to detect individual photons, as Einstein showed, by observing the behavior of electrons kicked out of metal surfaces by light incident on the metal. The difference between photons and gravitons is that gravitational interactions are enormously weaker than electromagnetic interactions. If you try to detect individual gravitons by observing electrons kicked out of a metal surface by incident gravitational waves, you find that you have to wait longer than the age of the universe before you are likely to see a graviton. I looked at various possible ways of detecting gravitons and did not find a single one that worked. Because of the extreme weakness of the gravitational interaction, any putative detector of gravitons has to be extravagantly massive. If the detector has normal density, most of it is too far from the source of gravitons to be effective, and if it is compressed to a high density around the source it collapses into a black hole. There seems to be a conspiracy of nature to prevent the detector from working.
I propose as a hypothesis to be tested that it is impossible in principle to observe the existence of individual gravitons. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true, only that I can find no evidence against it. If it is true, quantum gravity is physically meaningless. If individual gravitons cannot be observed in any conceivable experiment, then they have no physical reality and we might as well consider them non-existent. They are like the ether, the elastic solid medium which nineteenth-century physicists imagined filling space. Electric and magnetic fields were supposed to be tensions in the ether, and light was supposed to be a vibration of the ether. Einstein built his theory of relativity without the ether, and showed that the ether would be unobservable if it existed. He was happy to get rid of the ether, and I feel the same way about gravitons.
According to my hypothesis, the gravitational field described by Einstein's theory of general relativity is a purely classical field without any quantum behavior. Gravitational waves exist and can be detected, but they are classical waves and not collections of gravitons. If this hypothesis is true, we have two separate worlds, the classical world of gravitation and the quantum world of atoms, described by separate theories. The two theories are mathematically different and cannot be applied simultaneously. But no inconsistency can arise from using both theories, because any differences between their predictions are physically undetectable"
Why is Quantum Gravity so hard?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/07/14/why-is-quantum-gravity-so-hard-and-why-did-stalin-execute-the-man-who-pioneered-the-subject/
" The reason is that, when it comes to gravity, mass is the gravitational analog of electric charge. You do not have freedom to choose mass and (gravitational) charge separately, as you do in electromagnetism." (Gennady Gorelik blog)
Yuri,
You wrote:
"2. If you take away all matter, there is no more space 3.The theory contains no absolute elements. I am also a supporter of opinion that gravity is not a fundamental force. It seems to me that Sakharov's view about gravitation as elasticity of space is close to truth."
Are you saying that without matter gravity doesn't exist. Would Einstein say this? Can the vacuum of space be empty? Not according to Krauss in Universe from Nothing. What do you think?
Jim
Gravity doesn't exist without matter.
I am not agree with Krauss.
Every cycle the Universe in the end gives product for next cycle.
Once again, why G and c not fundamental.
Because in the same space - time they vary synchronously, but in Planck units of length and Planck unit of time they have different dependencies, and therefore none of them are true.
Once again, why is not always suitable 4D space-time.
Because it does not solve the problem of beginning.
Once again, why gravity is not a fundamental interaction.
Because it is emergent and graviton does not exist.
My discussion with George Ellis
Yuri
Dear Dr Ellis,
First of all I would like reminding to you one quote from famous neurophysiologist Warren McCulloch, known for his work on the foundation for certain brain theories and his contribution to the cybernetics movement .
In the last century he wrote:
''As I see what we need first and foremost is not correct theory, but some
theory to start from, whereby we may hope to ask a question so that we will
get an answer, if only to the effect that our notion was entirely
erroneous. Most of the time we never even get around to asking the question
in such a form that it can have an answer."(Discussion with John von Neumann
John von Neumann Collected works, Volume 5,p.319)
It was about mind - body relationship and brain function
My question is the following:
I think this is applicable to modern physics?
I put forward 3 questions:
1) 4D space-time?
2) Gravity as a fundamental force?
3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)?
My attempts to get answers see my essay
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Ellis
1) 4D space-time? -- yes!
2) Gravity as a fundamental force? -- of course: but it's not a force like other forces, it's an expression of spacetime curvature, because of the principle of equivalence. Its the gravitational field (the Weyl tensor) that is more fundamental.
3) 3 fundamental dimensional constants(G, c, h)? -- well it's the dimensionless constants that really count. The "Living Review" by J-P Uzan is great on the topic: see here
Ellis
I have read your essay and still do not understand the set of numbers you give above. It is completely unclear what they refer to. Nevertheless I have two comments:
1. Your theory seems mainly numerological. I can't see what the underlying theory is that is supposed to lead to those numbers. Is it based in M theory, or general relativity, or loop quantum gravity, or what?
2.Your proposal is I think a form of cyclic universe. But no one has yet provided an unproblematic mechanism for a bounce between cycles, despite many attempts to do so.I did not see any mechanism presented in your essay that will resolve this problem (which is one I once spent many years thinking about).
Ellis
You don't provide a coherent theory, just a set of numerological statements. Additionally those are dimensional statements, and so entirely based in the choice of units. You can get any other result by changing the units, so they have no physical meaning.
Yuri
All scientific community used as basic Planck units.
My approach close to John Moffat proposal a variable speed of light approach to cosmological problems, which posits that G/c is constant through time, but G and c separately have not been. Moreover, the speed of light c may have been much higher during early moments of the Big Bang.
Ellis
John Moffat is a serious scholar, but he got the varying speed of light effect wrong. What he proposed was not a physical effect, it was just a change of coordinates. It can be eliminated by a change to more suitable coordinates.
Yuri
In my approach in duration cosmological time
Appendix 2 Cosmological values of mass
Mp =10^-24; 10^-24; 10^-24
Me =10^-28; 10^-28; 10^-28
Mpl=10^-4; 10^-4; 10^-4
Mhbl=10^16; 10^16; 10^16
See Scale invariance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_invariance
Scaling law has not been canceled.
Ellis
Moffat's later bimetric theory was OK, it was his first varying speed of light theory that was wrong. I did not see in your essay that you are proposing a bimetric theory.
There has been a huge amount of work on the possibility of varying constants since Gamov. Please see for example J P Uzan et al here and links therein: there are many constraints on such theories. You'll need to tie in to this literature in order to be taken seriously nowadays.
That is my final comment on your essay on this thread.
Dear Dr Wharton
First quote from your essay: "The LSU blends time and space together just
like GR, while the NSU has to grapple with a dynamic evolution that seems to single out time as\special".
In my essay I write about this issue ,but contrary.
See my letter to Dr Stephen Weinberg.
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Hi Yuri,
I think I disagree with Weinberg's response to your interesting question -- I don't think that you can discretize space while not discretizing time, at least not in any GR-friendly way.
That said, I'm not a particular fan of discretization at all -- at least not the conventional justifications for it. (That was the last essay contest, which I linked to above.
My essay devoted at first to splitting space from time.
GR-is not completed theory,as SR.Why i must be friendly to her?
Wharton
You certainly don't have to be friendly to GR or SR -- many quantum theorists take the same view.
For me, I guess I just have too much respect for Einstein's hard-won insights, and too little respect for our human intuitions about time.
Julian
Are you agree with my abstract?
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413
Julian Barbour
I can agree with some of Yuri's abstract, mainly because it only invites us to reconsider
Yuri,
Thanks for the feedback. I just read your essay, which I found interesting in several regards. I note that you mention the idea that space can be described in terms of angles. Julian Barbour suggests something similar with his "shape dynamics," but doesn't suggest quantization.
You point out that the strong, weak, and electromagnetic interactions are of similar strengths and that gravity is much weaker. This is true, of course, but it's also interesting to think about the size scales on which these interactions dominate. The strong and weak interactions have very short range, while electromagnetism dominates up to about the everyday scale, where gravity takes over.
You also point out some interesting numerical relationships. There is much speculation about the dimensionality of space and the number of particle generations, but the 18-degree thing is something I have not heard of before. Take care,
Yuri,
Let me make sure I understand. So you think that the ratio c/G is constant, but neither G nor c are independently constant? Do you mean constant in "space" or constant in "time?" Take care,
Ben
Yuri answer
Variation constants in time.Within a single cycle.
