Black Holes or Anything Else? by C. Corda, D. Leiter, H. J. Mosquera Cuestra, S. Robertson, and R. E. Schild

My condolences for your colleagues Darryl Jay Leiter,

Are you agree with my abstract?

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Christian et al.

Congratulations on an excellent re-appraisal of Black Hole theory, which as Rudy knows (and you from last year) is very consistent with my own work on DFM toriod AGN's.

You may wish to read the parallel Benedict essay. I felt deja vu reading yours after my recent comments on that blog. I can only add, as discussed previously, that the AGN model should be a continuous helical, so toroidal, em Tokamak form, and the ejection (of 'primordial plasma' as you say) is 'quasar' jets and the cause of the anomalous re-ionization of matter, which I proposed to Rudy is focussed at z=1.7. My comments also extended to the redshift question, where the receding matter is taken out of the visible spectrum to the IR).

I found your NLED Lagrangian link interesting and informative, and I wonder if you see the same connection as I do to Ken Warton's excellent essay. It is worth seeking out. As you know I've also been analysing non-linear optics effects wrt deriving the SR postulates from the quanta.

My own essay indeed establishes that the strong equivalence principle is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM. I hope you'll read it and comment.

Yours is I believe a very important essay with some important quantification I have been seeking for some time. Well done and thanks. I look forward to your comments on mine.

Best of luck. and regards to Rudy.

Peter

Dear Physicists,

I do believe you are investigating a theory (singularities in black holes) that has been accepted without question for too long.

However you made my day with your last paragraph: " As recently some scientists, like the Nobel Laureate G. 't Hooft [8], partially retrieved the old Einstein's opinion [7] that quantum mechanics has to be subjected to a more general deterministic theory "

Yes, it is about time that this is happening!

I have recently stumbled across the Schwarzschild radius' in two unexpected places:

1. Particles attain this radius when they are accelerated to near the speed of light. http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1403

2. If you use estimates of the mass of the universe (include dark energy) and solve for r in: r = 2Gm/c^2 you get a number that corresponds to estimates of the radius of the universe. Coincidence? See post of Ioannis Hadjidakis in my essay blog.

Don L.

Hi Yury,

Thanks for your condolences.

Concerning the abstract of your Essay, in my opinion gravitation as a Integral effect of the Universe is not in contrast with gravity as a fundamental force. In that case, if you split 3D discrete space from 1D continues time can you construct a metric theory of gravity which is needed to taken into account experimental measures which guarantee that Equivalence Principle is valid at a level 10 to minus 13?

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Peter,

Nice to see you in our Essay-page.

Thanks for congratulations, I am going to read the parallel Benedict Essay. I will read Ken Warton's Essay too.

I think that it is quite important that NLED Lagrangian is endorsed by observations on the gravitational redshift on compact objects like

pulsars and neutron stars.

I am going to read your Essay with a lot of interest. In fact, it is a very good issue that SPOE is indeed valid as a Law and, surprisingly perhaps, compatible with QM.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Don,

Thanks for your kind words.

I totally agree with your Einstenian point of view on determinism in Science.

Concerning the points that you raise:

1. I am going to read your Essay and I will bring back to you with my comments.

2. I well know that the Universe's gravitational radius is of order of the Hubble lenght. I do not think that it is a coincidence.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Are you agree with 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.

Christian

I hope you find time to read not only abstract but completely all essay.

OK Yuri,

I am going to read it.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Yuri,

I know Moffat's proposal only partially. Hence, I cannot judge it.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Christian,

I have enjoyed your essay about the Black Hole riddle. I have had the occasion to attend several 't Hooft talk recently. Besides his study of black hole he also trying to achieve a deterministic formulation of quantum field theory, with some background common ideas. I would like to drawn your attention to my essay in which I have re-elaborate 't Hooft basic idea of determinism obtaining extremely interesting results for a unified description of physics. The idea can be extended to describe black-holes, though I do not mention that in my essay. In particular, by considering that every elementary particle is a reference clock, it is possible to face the black-hole riddle in a very original way, with interesting corresponding with your idea.

Best regards,

Donatello

hello to your team,

Hello Dr Corda,

Happy to see you again. I liked your essay.It is a beautiful extrapolation.

That said, I askme why the gravitation is not inserted. My equations are relevant considering the volumes and the correlated mass of the analyzed sphere, here the BH.The rotations can be calculated. The singularities are central codes.So of course it is difficult to find them with mathematical plays. If the Horizons must be sorted, so the evolution must be inserted like the SR and its limitation of perceptions in 3D, and still more for our present and its superimposings.It is a difficult puzzle. But what are these BH ? I agree they are intriguing.The fact that they absorb all the perceptions of light imply this fact that they are black. So it implies that they are not really black. How can we see them really ? we must put a light near them in fact :)we shall see them. The informations are intriguing coming from these central spheres.I beleive that we must class them. Their volumes increase towards the central BH of our universal sphere.

The AGNs are intriguing indeed , their mass can be correlated with the volumes.

If we take my equations and this one M=(av²)/G and if we unify G h and c , all becomes easier when the gravitation turns in the other sense than c. In fact it unifies the general relativity and the quantum field theory. The 4 forces are unified.Now the volumes are very relevant when they are inserted with the caompton wavelenght and the planck time and mass. The evolution appears when the fermions encode the bosons. The quantum field theory is unified with G simply in turning in the other sense.Now of course the serie of uniqueness is essential for the two systems of gauge.Fermions and bosons.The substitutions with my equations are relevant at my humble opinion.E=m(c³o³s³) and mcosV=const. The spoe is ok :)

The singularities are these central spheres, quantic.and this central BH of our Universal sphere.The mass curves this space time in the respect of the eisntein equations. In logic, if we know the volumes of all our stars of our milky way, so we can calculate the volume of our central spherical BH. the others are in the same logic.The proportions are universally linked. The singularities are so in a pure intresting complexity of these BH because they are unique. In this line of reasoning we can extrapolate the actual volume of our central sphere of our universal sphere.In fact the serie is between these two 1. It is so the fractal and its distribution which becomes relevant.

The volumes of spheres and their rotations spinal and orbital are purelly linked with h and c so G is ok :)because m and hv turns simply in opposite sense. The real ask is so? binar of fusioned.....the volumes are the secret it seems to me.

I liked this essay, I wish you good luck.

Regards

the spherical Jedi

Hi Donatello,

Thanks for your interesting comments. I am surely going to read your Essay. Determinism against uncertainity is, perhaps, the most fascinating issue of Modern Science. I agree with you and 't Hooft on Einstein's idea that "God does not play dice with the universe." Hence, the vision of the Copenaghen's School on the world cannot be final.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Ch.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your comments.

Notice that, actually, the gravitation is indeed inserted in our Essay. In fact, in pages 8-9 we develop an EXACT solution of Einstein Field Equation for the gravitational collapse which is NOT singular.

I am going to read your Essay.

Cheers,

Ch.

hello ,

You are welcome.

But you know,I have not put an essay, like all the years.Do you see an essay from me? People superimpose the algorythms for their strategy!!!

Dr Corda, My Pc and my net are very bizare.People checks my pc.

ps the eisntein field equation is optimizerd with my equations E=m(c³o³s³) and mcosV=const.

The collapse is not singular, so the bosonic correlation is relevant with the general relativity.The sense of rotations Dr Corda.

Regards

Dear Corda,

You study the black holes using the general relativity. But in general relativity there is a problem - absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself. Covariant theory of gravitation has no such problem. It is interesting could you repeat your calculation in this theory and what result there may be? In my opinion black holes are impossible in nature.

Sergey Fedosin Essay

Dear Dr. Corda,

Thanks for your nice and logically written essay. But,I feel,you have touched the Black-Hole (BH) from outside and seems to be afraid of going inside it inorder to know what happens there. If you are really interested in knowing it,please,go through my essay and express your comments in my forum (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1543--Sreenath B N.).I also found an interesting issue in your essay regarding applying 'special relativistic effects' to BHs' horizons.I,too,have an interesting concept to be applied to special relativity (SR). i.e.,the concept of minimum velocity to SR. This has far reaching consequences on it. For example, it restricts the maximum increase in the relativistic mass and energy and at the same time it restricts minimum decrease in temporal duration and contraction of measuring rod.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards and good luck in the essay contest.

Sreenath.

Dear Spherical Jedi,

Sorry, I misunderstood your previous message by thinking that your comment were present in an Essay that you put in this contest.

Notice that your solution is non-singular without rotations.

Cheers,

Ch.

Dear Sergey G. Fedosin,

Actually, the absence of stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself is not a problem. Indeed it is a consequence of Equivalence Principle which is today tested with a precision of 10^-13. For Equivalence Principle we cannot localize the energy of the gravitational field as we can always choice a reference frame, i.e. the frame of a free falling observer, where the gravitational field is null. Hence, the stress-energy tensor of gravitational field itself does not exist.

Best wishes,

Ch.