Postulates and Prejudices in Fundamental Physics by Janko Kokosar

Janko:

You mention "consciousness".. I attack it as an emergent (memory) and pansychistic (directive) property. See:To Seek Unknown Shores

聽聽 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1409

Comment?

Janko,

You stated "It would be strange that gravity would not be a primary reason for the elementary particles, because the elementary particles are foundation of space-time, and the same is true for gravity. But this conrms that the elementary particles are BHs or something very similar to BHs or at least that they are gravitationally built up objects,"

To perhaps give you some more food for thought on your essay, I agree with this sentence in a way. Modeling particles as elastic wave packet (see Sandhu Section 5) holes using a mathematically correct form of the Einsten tensor, imagine the Fig.2 of Marcoen's paper as traveling holes instead of particles. Does this seem akin to what you are getting at?

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

I wrote still some summary about the above paper. It is in attachement and it is found on viXra.

I hope for discusion with arguments, anti-arguments, new knowledge, and new ideas, because this is the most important part of this contenst. I also read other essays in this contest and I will give arguments, and when it will be clear, I will give marks.

Good LuckAttachment #1: Petkov.pdf

Dear Janko,

In your essay elementary particles may be as black holes. But in accordance with the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter black holes do not exist. And at the level of particles there is strong gravitation.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Janko,

According to your essay: < But this confirms that the elementary particles are BHs or something very similar to BHs or at least that they are gravitationally built up objects.> I supposed that you understand black holes (BH) in usual way. The idea of strong gravitation is very old. A lot of people try to calculate Strong gravitational constant. With this constant the radius of a particle with the mass of proton is close to radius in the formula for the black hole: [math]R = \frac {2\Gamma M_p}{c^2} = 5.63\cdot 10^{-15} m[/math], where [math]\Gamma = 1.514 \cdot 10^{29} m^3 /(kg s) [/math] is strong gravitational constant, Mp is proton mass, c is speed of light. But in reality radius of proton Rp is equal to [math]8.73 \cdot 10^{-16} m[/math], and so Rp < R. On the other hand instead of c we must use speed 4.3 c in the formula for the radius of black hole. It is so the speed of light for the proton is the characteristic speed of its matter, as for the neutron star the characteristic speed of its matter is equal to [math]C_s = 6.7 \cdot 10^7 m/s[/math]. See Stellar_constants. Then for the black hole at particle level of matter must be: [math]R_b = \frac {2\Gamma M_p}{(4.3 c)^2} = 3 \cdot 10^{-16} m[/math]. We se that Rp > Rb, and proton is not a black hole, as a neutron star.

Sergey Fedosin

Dear Janko,

I think you have done a fantastic job with this essay. You manage to touch on many aspects of some very profound issues in a short space and also provide excellent context and referencing. I think the subject of consciousness is quite difficult and is probably beyond our current science, but it is perfectly legitimate (and interesting too) to speculate about it in an educated way. A few other thoughts come to mind:

1. I agree with you that "spacetime" cannot exist without "matter-energy," (I looked at your viXra article) but I don't think that this is widely appreciated.

2. You mention diffeomorphism invariance and background independence in GR, and in your viXra paper you mention a "simpler version of Einstein's general covariance." You also mention Markopoulou's "quantum graphity." If you have time, you might look at my essay here, where I describe a different interpretation of covariance and a graph-theoretic approach to quantum gravity that is somewhat different that Markopoulou's. You have evidently thought about these topics carefully, and I would appreciate any feedback you might provide.

3. Regarding the information-theoretic nature of the physical world, my hope is that quantum computers can be used to isomorphically model certain aspects of fundamental-scale physics (I also discuss this at the end of my essay).

4. I appreciate both your recognition that the dimensionality of spacetime must be explained, and your providing/referencing several possible explanations.

5. Two possible "explanations" for the arrow of time are to take causality to be fundamental (so that time is just a way of talking about cause and effect) and to use the asymmetry of a configuration space (I believe Barbour's shape dynamics does this) so that time is an intrinsically quantum phenomenon.

6. I agree that elementary particles ought to have a "spacetime interpretation." Over the continuum, black holes seem like a natural option, as you suggest. I prefer not to assume the continuum myself, but there are good arguments for manifolds too. Cristinel Stoica has an interesting essay here about "singular relativity" that you might like to look at.

7. I think the nature of time in GR should be taken much more seriously than in QT, since GR is background independent.

8. You have some interesting ideas about QG; I will have to think about these more. I am not sure the equivalence principle will survive in QG, but I agree it is nicer to preserve fundamental principles if possible. I won't presume to say anything about consciousness.

Thanks for the fascinating read. Your work rates very highly in my opinion. Take care,

Ben Dribus

Dear Janko,

i promised to read again your essay and i did it this morning.

I must fully affiliate to the points made by Benjamin in his post above.

Although i am not sure if one can link the features of BH's to the features of "particles", i nonetheless think that it is worth tinking seriously about it. My approach to tink of "particles" as "empty containers" for "properties at the time of interaction" may be somewhat similar to your approach to "particles" being BH's with no definite interior. Yes, it is somewhat attractive to link the phyiscal properties of a BH's to the ones of certain particles: namely charge, mass and angular momentum. Maybe you are on the right track with this.

I now read a little bit more about weak measurements and i must confess that i am not convinced at all about the conclusions that are drawn by some experimentalists. Namely the conclusion that there are backwards causations seems to me to be somewhat transformable into my own explanation scheme. The tension between statements of those experimentalists about ensembles of particles which exhibit some "future-caused" behaviour and single particles that don't (because of the lack of a proper signal-noise-distance or a single event) seems for me to be just another variation of measuring correlations due to entanglement of the degrees of freedom of the environment with the device and the object of interest. How this all can be rendered such that it gives the illusion of classical time or even "backwards-causality" - i outlined this in my essay.

Note that it is not clear at all how the degrees of freedom get entangled in an experimental setup. There is no one-to-one asigning of the degrees of freedom for a measurement-device/environment for any experimental run today and/or tomorrow. This is due to entanglement effects arising in weak measuremnts that leave an imprint of information in the whole system, such, that it SEEMS that the future does impact the past. For all this to work like i described here, one "only" must assume that entanglement can be understood to render mutually exclusive measurement results to become consistent with what happened in the past. In other words: At the micro-level it mimics physical causality.

Janko, it was a pleasure to read your essay and to realize that there are people who try to prove every way to enhance our understanding of reality. I therefore think your essay should be rated very positive.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Dear Janko,

hope you read my comment above. I rated your essay as very positive and i want to remark some additional reasons for this. You have thought intensively about consciousness as a necessary ingredient for every measurement theory and therefore for physics in general. Your references to some latest experimental evidence for quantum effects in living organisms where very helpfull for me. I read them and realized that Tegmarks calculations may be right, but QM could have some tricky workarounds to shape the brains' mechanism quantum mechanically.

Best wishes,

Stefan

After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

Cood luck.

Sergey Fedosin

If you do not understand why your rating dropped down. As I found ratings in the contest are calculated in the next way. Suppose your rating is [math]R_1 [/math] and [math]N_1 [/math] was the quantity of people which gave you ratings. Then you have [math]S_1=R_1 N_1 [/math] of points. After it anyone give you [math]dS [/math] of points so you have [math]S_2=S_1+ dS [/math] of points and [math]N_2=N_1+1 [/math] is the common quantity of the people which gave you ratings. At the same time you will have [math]S_2=R_2 N_2 [/math] of points. From here, if you want to be R2 > R1 there must be: [math]S_2/ N_2>S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] (S_1+ dS) / (N_1+1) >S_1/ N_1 [/math] or [math] dS >S_1/ N_1 =R_1[/math] In other words if you want to increase rating of anyone you must give him more points [math]dS [/math] then the participant`s rating [math]R_1 [/math] was at the moment you rated him. From here it is seen that in the contest are special rules for ratings. And from here there are misunderstanding of some participants what is happened with their ratings. Moreover since community ratings are hided some participants do not sure how increase ratings of others and gives them maximum 10 points. But in the case the scale from 1 to 10 of points do not work, and some essays are overestimated and some essays are drop down. In my opinion it is a bad problem with this Contest rating process. I hope the FQXI community will change the rating process.

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